deploy_code_assetRun an owned/adopted asset in the locked-down Docker sandbox, or through an explicitly configured secure deployment hook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate the tool is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying a locked-down Docker sandbox and the need for an explicitly configured secure deployment hook. However, it omits permission requirements, side effects, cost, or failure behavior, which are relevant for a tool that runs user code.
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 sentence with no fluff. The key scope ('owned/adopted asset') and both execution modes are front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaningful distinction.
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 tool that executes code with no output schema and minimal annotation coverage, the description is under-specified. It does not mention what a successful run returns, how to verify the outcome, prerequisites for 'owned/adopted', or guidance on choosing between sandbox and external_hook. It is minimally usable but leaves significant gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps mode to the two enum values (sandbox vs external_hook) and clarifies that asset_id refers to an owned/adopted asset, but it gives no meaning for timeout_seconds, its default, or constraints. Partial compensation only.
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 ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('an owned/adopted asset') and the two execution contexts ('locked-down Docker sandbox' or 'secure deployment hook'). This distinguishes it from read/list/submit siblings such as get_code_asset, list_code_assets, and submit_code_asset.
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 that the asset must be owned/adopted and that there are two modes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like project_deploy_cloudflare or submit_code_asset, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is present but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: profile registration, work discovery, leasing, listing contributions, viewing stats, reviewing, and submitting. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose, and the read/write boundaries are clear.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (find_profitable_work, lease_work, list_contributions, submit_contribution, review_candidate) with consistent snake_case. Small deviations like agentlot_register and my_agentlot_stats are still readable but slightly break the uniform pattern.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an agent marketplace workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 tool range.
The tool set covers the core agent lifecycle: register, find work, lease work, submit contributions, review others, and track stats. Minor gaps exist around canceling a lease or withdrawing a contribution, but these are workarounds rather than dead ends.