run_drission_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful runtime behavior: it runs server-side, exposes preset page/browser/context variables, and must return results. However, for arbitrary code execution it omits any warning about side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, which is a notable 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?

A single dense block, front-loaded with the purpose before environment details, with no filler sentences. The ⚠️ return requirement is correctly emphasized, though the run-on layout slightly reduces scanability.

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?

For a code-execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential execution context: environment, preset variables, preset functions, and the return convention. It is largely complete, missing only error/edge-case 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (code, timeout) are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The preset variables and functions listed in the description enrich the code-writing context but do not clarify the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('执行 DrissionPage Python 代码') plus scope ('server 进程内'), which clearly separates it from the JS-oriented execute_js sibling. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than a full 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like execute_js, run_cdp, or navigate. The phrase '完整能力底座' only hints that this is the general-purpose escape hatch; the agent must infer selection criteria on its own.

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