browser_run_code_unsafe

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: code runs in the Playwright server process (not the browser page) and is equivalent to remote code execution. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a sharp safety warning. No wasted words; the title and description are efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully discloses the primary risk and execution environment. It does not explain return behavior, but for a code execution tool, the return is whatever the user's code returns. The warning about RCE is the essential context, and it 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% for both code and filename, with detailed examples in the code parameter. The description does not need to add more, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs a Playwright code snippet and explicitly notes it executes arbitrary JavaScript in the server process, distinguishing it from safer alternatives like browser_evaluate. The warning 'RCE-equivalent' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage is only for advanced/unsafe scenarios via 'Unsafe' and 'RCE-equivalent', but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over browser_evaluate or other sibling tools. No clear alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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