evaluateMain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It identifies the execution context but omits side effects, safety risks, return behavior, and privilege implications of running arbitrary code in the main process.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It names the verb, resource, and process directly, which is as concise as possible for this tool signature.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry behavioral context, but it omits return values, async behavior, safety constraints, and error handling. The one parameter is documented in the schema, but the high-risk nature of main-process execution is not addressed.

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%, so the single script parameter is already fully documented by the schema, including the objects it receives. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute), resource (code), and scope (Electron main process). It implicitly distinguishes from the renderer-oriented sibling evaluate by naming the main process, but does not explicitly name or contrast the alternative.

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 says what it does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of evaluate or other siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or renderer-vs-main context are provided.

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