execute_script

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

With destructiveHint=false, the description expands on behavior: can read/modify DOM, trigger events, terminate apps, run shell commands. It also explains mobile syntax specifics. While not exhaustive (e.g., potential side-effects), it covers key behaviors beyond 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 front-loaded with purpose and well-structured, but somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value, covering browser/mobile distinctions and alternatives. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.

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?

Despite lack of output schema, the description covers return value usage ('return' for browser values) and mobile command syntax. It addresses the tool's complexity adequately, though mobile return values are not specified.

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% but description adds context: script parameter explained for both browser and mobile, args parameter detailed for element selectors or command-specific objects. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool executes arbitrary JavaScript in browser or Appium mobile commands, specifying distinct use cases. It distinguishes from dedicated tools by advising to use only when no dedicated tool covers the action, making the purpose precise and well-differentiated from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (only when no dedicated tool covers the action) and provides detailed examples for browser vs mobile. It also advises preferring click_element/set_value/get_elements for standard interactions, offering clear alternatives.

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