browser_evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the basic behavior (execute JavaScript and return result) but does not disclose potential side effects, security implications, or scope of execution (e.g., runs in page context). Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, 13 words total, with no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and suggesting use case. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on execution context, limitations, or return format. It covers the essentials but could be more informative for an agent.

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 schema provides type and required status for 'script' (coverage 100%). The description adds value by noting 'Use return to get a value', which clarifies how to obtain results. This goes beyond the schema's basic description and reduces confusion.

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 'Execute JavaScript' and the resource 'in the browser', and adds context with 'useful for complex extractions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_get_content by specifying JavaScript execution for complex tasks.

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 for complex extractions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides a hint but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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