camofox_evaluate_js

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that execution is invisible to page scripts (anti-detection) and requires an API key. However, it does not disclose side effects of DOM manipulation, error handling, or the return format of the evaluation result, leaving important behavioral details unaddressed.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences and a brief list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words, though the use cases could be integrated more efficiently.

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 complexity (JavaScript evaluation) and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values, error handling, and support for async expressions. It does not mention that results are serialized or that 'expression' must be synchronous, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists use cases that align with the 'expression' parameter but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves.

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 tool executes JavaScript in the browser page context, specifying it runs in an isolated scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other actions like clicking or taking snapshots. The list of use cases further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides explicit use cases ('extracting data not visible...', 'checking element properties', etc.) and notes the prerequisite (CAMOFOX_API_KEY). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools, which is a minor gap.

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