Evaluate in debugger

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'executes code' which hints at side effects, but does not warn about potential consequences of executing arbitrary expressions, permission requirements, or promise resolution behavior. This is a significant gap for a code execution tool.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that convey the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It barely covers the basic function and leaves out crucial information about parameter usage, behavior, and return values. It under-specifies a potentially complex debugger operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'expression' and the distinction between global and call-frame evaluation (callFrameId). It does not explain sessionId, awaitPromise, returnByValue, or targetSessionId, leaving most parameters undefined.

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 tool's function: evaluating an expression either globally or on a paused call frame. It uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('expression') and distinguishes itself from other debugger tools like get_object_properties or get_scope_variables_enhanced by focusing on general expression evaluation.

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 when to use it (in debugger contexts, globally or when paused) but does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to use this instead of related tools like get_object_properties.

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