browser_evaluate

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it doesn't add details about potential side effects or page modifications beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It effectively conveys the core purpose.

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?

While the description covers the basic action, it lacks explanation of return values (e.g., what the JavaScript expression returns) and does not elaborate on the filename parameter for saving results. Given the annotations and schema, it meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra meaning. The phrase 'on page or element' hints at the element parameter but does not add concrete semantics.

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 it evaluates JavaScript on a page or element, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'browser_run_code_unsafe' which also executes code.

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 alternatives like 'browser_run_code_unsafe' or 'browser_click'. There is no mention of prerequisites, safety considerations, or contextual cues.

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