GenOffice app eval (DOM)

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only default, the mutate=true requirement to change the page, the CDP (Chrome DevTools Protocol) mechanism, and the prerequisite that the app must be running with a debug port. This is solid behavioral disclosure given zero annotation coverage, although it doesn't detail error behavior or edge cases.

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?

Three short, dense sentences deliver purpose, usage guidance, behavioral constraints, and prerequisites with zero wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by safety behavior and usage context.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the safety model (read-only vs mutate), the prerequisite (debug port), and the use case distinction from siblings. It could mention the return value format (what the evaluation result looks like) but given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the 'mutate' parameter's read-only default and the implication that mutation requires explicit opt-in, which reinforces but does not merely duplicate the schema. The expression example (document.title) is embedded in the schema, not the description, but the description's context adds value.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Evaluate a JavaScript expression in the GenOffice app page context over CDP.' It clearly states DOM reads/writes capability and distinguishes from sibling read tools by noting it covers 'UI state that the read tools do not cover.' The purpose is fully clear and precise.

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 states when to use it ('for inspecting UI state that the read tools do not cover') and mentions the mutability toggle explicitly. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (though it implies genoffice_extract_text and screenshot as the read tools) nor does it explicitly state when NOT to use it beyond the implication.

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