execute_script

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious execution of JavaScript. It omits details such as whether the script executes in the page context, synchronous vs async, or if there are security limitations. No annotations are present to fill the gap.

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 extremely short, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, and this one does not.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal to provide an agent with enough context to correctly invoke and interpret the tool's behavior.

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 2 parameters (script and args) with no description coverage. The description adds no meaning about what 'script' or 'args' represent, how arguments are passed, or what the expected format is. This is critical missing information.

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 'Execute JavaScript in the browser' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'execute_script'. It does not provide any additional specificity about what the tool does, such as whether it returns a value or manipulates the page.

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. With many sibling tools for browser automation, the description should explain, for example, that this is for running arbitrary JS rather than simpler actions like clicking or typing.

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