run_code

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'returns the results' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., attempt tracking, rate limits, execution timeouts, error behavior). For a code execution tool, critical behavioral aspects are missing. Score 2.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters). However, it's front-loaded with the action. Score 4 for being appropriately brief.

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 tool's complexity (code execution, 3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits return format, error handling, language support, and execution context. Score 2 for being incomplete.

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%. The description does not explain what 'problem_slug', 'code_lang', or 'code' mean (e.g., valid code_lang values, code format). It adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Score 1 as it fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Executes code against the example test cases' – verb (executes) and resource (code against example test cases) are specific. Differentiates from siblings like submit_code (which likely uses all test cases), though not explicitly. Score 4 because it's clear but no sibling differentiation.

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?

Implied usage: use this to test code against example cases before submission. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools (e.g., 'Use this for quick testing; use submit_code for final submission'). Score 3 for implied but no explicit guidance.

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