playwright__browser_run_code_unsafe

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: execution is RCE-equivalent and runs in the Playwright server process. This goes beyond the structured annotations by giving the agent a concrete risk profile without contradicting them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys both the operation and the critical safety caveat with no filler. The structure makes the danger immediately visible before any other details.

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 an open-ended code-execution tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema covers invocation, parameters, and risk. It does not mention that return values depend on the snippet's return, but this is inherent to running arbitrary code, and the essential safety context is present.

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 both parameters thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including invocation details and precedence behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline-3 rule applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('a Playwright code snippet'), and a clear scope ('executes arbitrary JavaScript in the Playwright server process'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_evaluate by emphasizing server-process execution and RCE-equivalence, making selection 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many Playwright siblings, especially browser_evaluate. The 'unsafe' and 'RCE-equivalent' warnings imply caution but do not state when the tool should be preferred or avoided, nor do they name an alternative.

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