evaluate_in_main

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

No annotations are provided, and the description covers only execution context (main process, Electron APIs). It omits behavioral traits such as side effects, return format, error handling, or auth requirements, which are critical for a tool with no 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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose and context. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 that there are only three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and where it operates. It distinguishes from sibling tools but could benefit from mentioning return behavior or common use cases.

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 is 100%, and the description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The description's mention of 'main process' provides context but not parameter-level detail. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the burden.

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 evaluates a JavaScript expression in the main (Node/Electron) process via the inspector protocol. It specifies the verb 'evaluate,' the resource 'JavaScript expression,' and the context 'app's main process,' distinguishing it from siblings like evaluate_in_renderer.

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 implies usage by mentioning Electron APIs and main process, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like evaluate_in_renderer or evaluate_on_call_frame. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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