run_program

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it performs execution, returns specific fields, and optionally saves. However, it omits details like side effects (other than save), permissions, idempotency, or potential errors.

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, focused sentence that communicates core purpose and return fields. It is clear and front-loaded, though the return list could be better integrated (e.g., 'returns a result with...').

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields but lacks details on their structure or format. For an execution tool with nested input, it provides sufficient high-level info but could be more complete regarding error cases and complex behavior.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The tool description adds no new information beyond the schema’s own descriptions (e.g., 'nano_vm.Program JSON' and 'Optional name to save'). Baselines at 3 with no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool executes a nano-vm Program and returns trace_id, status, step count, and cost. It distinguishes from sibling tools (delete, get, list, get_trace) by focusing on execution and optional persistence.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. While sibling tools imply usage for execution, the description does not provide context for when not to use or any required setup.

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