execute_mu

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

The description mentions 'remote-eval' execution but lacks details on potential side effects, security implications, or error behavior. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 with a clear summary, a usage note, and three illustrative examples. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers basic execution context and return values through examples. With an output schema present, it compensates for missing return type details. Could include more on execution environment limits.

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 description has 0% schema coverage, but provides examples showing the expected format (curly braces, semicolons). However, it does not formally describe the parameter's syntax, return value expectations, or error handling.

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 explicitly states 'Execute arbitrary Mu code in RV and return the result,' which is a specific verb+resource. No sibling tool performs code execution, making it distinct.

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 provides examples and notes the need to 'require commands;' for certain functions, giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the unique functionality makes usage intuitive.

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