run_example

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

Discloses that sample stdin is used if not overridden, and that the action is 'in one shot' (atomic). However, no mention of side effects, output format, or error handling. With no annotations, the burden is higher; some behavioral aspects are missing.

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 front-loads purpose and adds a parenthetical detail on default behavior. No wasted words, fully efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, key parameter semantics, and default stdin behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., program output as string, stdout passthrough, or just exit status). This leaves a gap for an execution tool.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by providing an example value for 'id' ('prime-sieve') and clarifying that 'stdin' overrides the sample stdin, giving practical usage context.

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?

Description clearly states 'Compile and run a built-in example by id in one shot', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_example' (retrieve only) and 'list_examples' (list only), as well as 'compile_and_run' which likely handles custom code.

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?

Implicitly describes when to use (to run built-in examples by id) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. No guidance on using compile_and_run for custom code.

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