browser_evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing safety and side effects. It fails to mention that executing JavaScript can modify the page, trigger network requests, cause navigation, or otherwise disrupt the browser state. The _agent_id isolation mechanism is also not mentioned in the description, leaving agents unaware of potential cross-agent contamination.

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, concise sentence containing no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward action, though the brevity comes at the cost of explanatory depth. Structure is fine; it's just minimal.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values, side effects, and the impact of _agent_id. It does none of this. For a JavaScript execution tool that can arbitrarily affect the page, the lack of behavioral context makes it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the function string and _agent_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats '函数字符串' from the function parameter. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and no additional semantic enrichment is present.

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 uses the verb '执行' (execute) with a clear resource 'JavaScript（函数字符串）' in the page, which unambiguously states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_click, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_snapshot. It simply states what it does without any context for selection, making it a bare functionality disclosure with no implicit or explicit usage direction.

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