browser_evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. However, it only states 'execute JavaScript' without disclosing whether it returns a value, if it is synchronous, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that runs arbitrary code.

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 sentence, efficient and to the point. However, it is somewhat terse and could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning return value). Still, it avoids waste.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to handle errors, or any behavioral details. Reference to browser_docs is not part of the description itself.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the 'code' parameter as 'JavaScript code to execute'. The description merely repeats this without adding meaning (e.g., code format, permissions). Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states 'Execute JavaScript in the browser context', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool that runs JavaScript code. Reference to browser_docs adds context.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it compares to other browser tools like browser_read_page or browser_get_text.

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