chrome_evaluate_js

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It states 'arbitrary JavaScript,' hinting at potential side effects, but does not explicitly warn about page modification, navigation, or security implications. A more transparent description would include cautionary notes.

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 of 12 words. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's power (arbitrary JS execution) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not cover return format, error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., an active tab), or safety precautions. More completeness would be beneficial.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to add. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 verb ('Runs arbitrary JavaScript'), the resource ('current Google Chrome tab'), and the result ('returns its result'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_click or chrome_navigate, and even from safari_evaluate_js by specifying the browser.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over others. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of scenarios where this tool is appropriate or alternatives like chrome_read_tab for reading page content.

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