browser_run_code_unsafe

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint true, openWorldHint true), the description adds specific risk information: 'executes arbitrary JavaScript in the Playwright server process and is RCE-equivalent.' This clarifies the nature of the destructiveness.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the key warning. Every word is informative with no 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?

While the schema covers parameters, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., result of code execution). Given no output schema, this is a gap. However, the core purpose and risk are adequately communicated.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The tool description adds no extra information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 'Run a Playwright code snippet,' specifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_evaluate by noting that it executes JavaScript in the server process, not the page 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?

The description warns that it is unsafe and RCE-equivalent, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_evaluate. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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