execute_javascript

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying concrete consequences: arbitrary code may mutate page state or storage, expose sensitive data, and send network requests. This complements the destructiveHint and openWorldHint flags and warns the agent about the non-read-only, potentially harmful nature of the operation. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 only two sentences long and both sentences carry essential information: the core action and the risk profile. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description covers the authorization requirement and the main risks, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns, how errors are reported, or how pageId relates to list_pages. For a high-complexity, high-risk tool, this leaves some important gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 any of the parameters (pageId, code, timeout). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance on how to obtain pageId, how code will be executed, or what timeout controls. This is a meaningful gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action and target: 'Execute JavaScript in a connected mobile H5 page later explicit authorization in vConsole.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_pages, get_console_logs, and get_network_requests, which are read-only inspection tools rather than code-execution tools.

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 gives one important precondition: explicit authorization in vConsole. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over the sibling read-only tools, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the contrast with the sibling tools but not spelled out.

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