execute_javascript

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the code executes in the browser context, potential side effects, or security considerations. This is a critical gap for a code execution tool.

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 very short and efficiently uses two lines to state the purpose and argument. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 executes arbitrary code, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value, side effects, execution context, and any constraints. For a potentially powerful tool, this level of incompleteness is unacceptable.

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 0%. The description only lists 'Args: code: JavaScript代码' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Code' title. It does not explain the expected format, limits, or purpose of the code parameter.

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 '执行JavaScript代码' (Execute JavaScript code) clearly states the action and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding scope or differentiation. It is clear enough but not enriched beyond the name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like click_element or navigate_to_url. The description does not mention prerequisites, return values, or scenarios where executing JavaScript is appropriate.

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