browser_run_code

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

No annotations provided. The description only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, execution context, permissions required, or error handling. The detail about 'receive page as the first argument' adds some context but is insufficient.

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 that conveys the essential information without any unnecessary words. It is concise 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the function returns, whether it can be asynchronous, or any constraints. Important context like the execution environment (browser vs Node) is missing, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'code' parameter by clarifying that the function will receive 'page' as the first argument, which goes beyond the schema. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 runs a Playwright JavaScript function against a specified tab. The verb 'run' and resource 'JavaScript function' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'browser_evaluate' which also runs JavaScript. However, the mention of 'receive page as the first argument' hints at a distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_evaluate or browser_type. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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