websex_python

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose three useful traits: the execution environment, asynchronous execution, and client-cancellability. It omits permissions/authorization needs, timeout behavior, and side effects, so it is helpful but incomplete for a code-execution tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the exclusivity rule, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the async/cancellable note covers execution behavior. However, for a 7-parameter code-execution tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves most parameters and the authorization model unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only covers source, path, and their mutual exclusivity. The remaining parameters (stdin, environment, script_arguments, working_directory, engagement_id) carry only bare titles with no meaning added anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run inline Python source or an engagement-relative Python file.' The Python-specific framing distinguishes it from generic siblings like websex_bash and websex_execute, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It gives one concrete invocation rule ('Provide exactly one of source or path'), which is real guidance, but it never says when to reach for this over websex_bash or websex_execute, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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