browser_evaluate

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., whether the evaluation can modify the page or access sensitive data). It is adequate but does not exceed the information provided by annotations.

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 is concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how the function parameter works or what the return value looks like. Annotations provide some context (destructive, open world), but the description could be more informative about usage scenarios and potential side effects.

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 for parameters is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('JavaScript expression on page or element'), making the purpose easily understood. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'browser_run_code_unsafe', which likely performs a similar operation but with different safety implications.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_run_code_unsafe'. The description implies usage for evaluating JavaScript, but lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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