tor_evaluate_js

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the gating condition TOR_ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT, providing extra context about when the tool will actually execute. However, it doesn't disclose details about script execution side effects or failure behavior when the environment variable is not set, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action ('Execute JavaScript') and followed by a concise condition. Every word contributes meaning, with zero redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one param) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It specifies the essential precondition (TOR_ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT=true) and the action. However, it could have also noted potential side effects or behavior when the condition is unmet, but with annotations covering destructive intent and a simple param, the description meets most needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the 'script' parameter should contain or any format expectations. While the parameter name is self-explanatory (a JavaScript string), the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's parameter name and type. The tool description lacks explicit documentation for the sole required parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Execute JavaScript only when TOR_ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT=true' uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('JavaScript'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling browser automation tools like clicking, typing, or navigation. The condition is a unique qualifier that makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit usage condition ('only when TOR_ALLOW_JAVASCRIPT=true'), which is a functional guideline for when this tool should be used. It doesn't mention alternatives, but among the listed siblings there is no other JavaScript execution tool, so the condition effectively communicates the tool's niche.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.