evaluate_in_worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the protocol ('flatten protocol') but does not describe return values, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 core purpose. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks details on return values or error behavior. Given there is no output schema, this omission reduces completeness for an agent that needs to know what to expect from the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value by reinforcing that workerTargetId comes from list_workers, but this largely duplicates the schema's description. No additional clarity is provided for other parameters.

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 JavaScript expressions in worker targets, specifying the verb, resource, and protocol. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_in_main and evaluate_in_renderer by mentioning workers and notes the prerequisite of obtaining workerTargetId from list_workers.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Get workerTargetId from list_workers') which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like evaluate_on_call_frame, though the sibling tool names provide context.

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