wavexis_iframe_eval

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

Explicitly discloses that side effects are arbitrary because user-supplied JavaScript is executed in the iframe, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. It also documents the return shape as a JSON string with 'status' and 'result' keys, giving the agent a clear outcome expectation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the operation is stated first, sensible alternatives are given, and the side effects and return contract are compactly summarized. There is no fluff or redundant boilerplate.

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 what the tool does, when to avoid it, what side effects to expect, and what the response looks like. It does not mention error cases or promise-await behavior, but the schema covers await_promise and the side-effect warning compensates for the risk that raw JS evaluation entails.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already provides: it tells the agent that an expression is evaluated in an iframe, but does not explain session_id, iframe_selector, or await_promise semantics. However, the input schema itself contains descriptive property documentation, so the baseline coverage is adequate and the tool description does not need to fully repeat it.

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, unambiguous action: evaluate a JavaScript expression inside an iframe. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like wavexis_iframe_click and wavexis_iframe_fill by emphasizing that this is the raw JS path rather than a standard interaction.

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?

Directly tells the agent to prefer wavexis_iframe_click or wavexis_iframe_fill for standard interactions instead of raw JS, which is an explicit when-not-to-use signal. It does not mention a specific alternative for non-iframe evaluation (wavexis_eval), but the iframe-specific name and context make the intended scope clear.

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