eval_service_worker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that JavaScript is executed in the Service Worker, without detailing return values, asynchronous behavior, error handling, side effects, or permission implications. This is a minimal, uninformative disclosure.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative regarding expected results.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to explain return behavior, possible errors, or execution semantics, but it does not. A simple eval tool still requires some statement about what happens after evaluation, which is missing.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'expression', defining it as the JavaScript expression to evaluate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb 'Execute' and a clear resource 'JavaScript in the extension Service Worker context', which accurately and precisely defines the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from sibling eval tools like eval_extension_page and content_script_eval by naming the exact 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 clearly states the context (Service Worker), which implies when to use it relative to sibling tools, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions.

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