run_python

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that arbitrary Python can be executed, explains the return behavior (expression value, or `result` for statement blocks), and mentions stdout capture. However, it does not explicitly warn about potential side effects or error handling, which is a minor gap for an arbitrary 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?

The description is concise at three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Execute arbitrary Python'). Every sentence provides useful information: the interpreter context, return mechanism, and stdout handling. 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the execution environment, return value conventions, and stdout. It lacks explicit error-handling details or caveats about side effects, but given the simplicity of the tool, these are not critical omissions.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that `code` is the Python code to execute, and adds crucial details about expression vs. statement block semantics and how to return values. This goes beyond the schema's bare 'Code' label, providing meaningful 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('arbitrary Python inside 3ds Max's embedded interpreter'), making the tool's purpose clear. It mentions pymxs, which ties it to Python specifically, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from run_maxscript, though the name and content imply the difference.

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 usage for Python code execution but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling run_maxscript or any other alternative. It gives practical guidance on how to structure code (expression vs. statement block) but not when to use the tool versus others.

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