ui_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says the code runs in the TradingView page context, which is useful, but it does not warn that arbitrary JavaScript can mutate page state, nor does it mention side effects, reversibility, or execution limits.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the action and context. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, even though more behavioral detail would be valuable.

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 arbitrary code execution tool, the description does not explain what the tool returns, how results are surfaced, or what happens when the expression fails. Since there is no output schema to fill that gap, an agent cannot reliably know what to expect from the invocation.

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%, so the single expression parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: execute JavaScript code in the TradingView page context. It also communicates the intended use case, advanced automation, and there is no sibling tool that does the same thing.

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 phrase 'for advanced automation' hints at when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over the many specific sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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