frame_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the core action and does not disclose return values, side effects of executing arbitrary JavaScript, error behavior, or how frame selection resolves when frame_name is empty. This is minimal.

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 with no filler and is appropriately front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose immediately without redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to compensate by explaining return behavior and side effects. It does not specify whether the result of the JavaScript expression is returned, how frame selection works beyond schema defaults, or any execution caveats.

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 coverage is 67%, with frame_name and frame_index documented in the schema, but the required expression parameter has no schema description. The description adds that the operation targets a frame but does not explain what the expression should return or how it is evaluated.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Execute JavaScript' inside a 'specific frame/iframe.' This distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'evaluate' by narrowing scope to frames, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies usage when a JavaScript expression must run in a frame rather than the main page, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'evaluate' or how to decide between frame_name and frame_index. Usage context is present but not fully articulated.

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