style_eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely warns that the tool is '高级' (advanced) but does not disclose potential side effects, hazards of executing arbitrary JS, return value characteristics, error handling, or any interaction with the page's state. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes code.

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, focused sentence that conveys the purpose and a usage warning without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 a potentially destructive tool like JS execution, the description is starkly incomplete. It does not mention return value, side effects, error behavior, or tab selection mechanics (though some are in the schema). The sibling tools list suggests a rich context, but this description does not integrate with it beyond the 'prefer other tools' caution.

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 75%: index, urlIncludes, and titleIncludes have descriptions, but the required 'expression' parameter is left undocumented. The tool description's '执行 JS 表达式' partially clarifies the expression param's role, but does not go beyond the parameter name's obvious meaning. Thus the description adds minimal semantic value over the schema, and the most critical parameter lacks explicit guidance.

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 specific verb and resource: '执行 JS 表达式' (execute JS expression) within the page. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling itself as '高级' (advanced) and directing preference to other tools, which clearly sets it apart from the more common interaction tools.

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 '优先其它工具' (prefer other tools) explicitly communicates that this tool should be used only when other tools are not suitable. This gives clear context on when to avoid it, though it doesn't name specific alternatives or list exclusions beyond that general guidance.

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