chrome_evaluate

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

Description mentions 'claimed tab' implying a prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or constraints (e.g., sandboxing, access to DOM, error handling). No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it omits important details. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information.

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?

No output schema, no annotations. The description covers only the basic purpose. For a tool that evaluates JavaScript, which could have side effects and complex return values, the description is not complete enough to guide correct 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 coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning to parameters. The three parameters (tabId, expression, awaitPromise) are not explained beyond their types and constraints in the schema. The description does not describe what tabId refers to, how expression is evaluated, or the effect of awaitPromise.

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 clearly states it evaluates JavaScript in a claimed tab using Runtime.evaluate. It identifies the verb and resource, and mentions the CDP method. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chrome_cdp_send, which could also evaluate JavaScript via arbitrary CDP commands.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it could be compared to chrome_cdp_send for more general CDP interaction. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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