evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires prior connection to a browser (implied by 'вкладке' - tab, but not explicit), what happens on execution errors, whether it returns results, or any security/permission considerations for JavaScript execution. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes code.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of executing JavaScript in a browser tab (a potentially risky operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key aspects: it doesn't explain return values (e.g., whether it returns execution results), error handling, dependencies on other tools like 'connect_to_browser', or safety considerations. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('script' as JavaScript code and 'tabIndex' as optional tab index). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as syntax examples for 'script' or default behavior if 'tabIndex' is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Выполнить' - execute) and the resource ('JavaScript код в указанной вкладке' - JavaScript code in a specified tab). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_console_logs' or 'execute_test' by focusing on direct JavaScript execution rather than testing or logging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential overlapping 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'evaluate' versus 'execute_test' (which might be for test execution) or 'get_console_logs' (for retrieving logs after execution). There's no context on prerequisites like needing an active browser connection or specific tab states.

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