Lean Kodunu Derle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the outcome contract (status=success on success, compiler messages in diagnostics on failure) and the available libraries, but says nothing about side effects, execution limits/timeouts, sandboxing, or the fact that arbitrary user code is executed locally — a meaningful gap for an 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and environment before the result semantics; nothing is wasted. The final sentence partially restates return values that the output schema already covers, a minor 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 one-parameter execution tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, environment, and result contract adequately. However, with no annotations and no mention of execution constraints or side effects, it is only minimally complete for a tool that runs arbitrary code.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'code' fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond restating that it accepts Lean 4 source, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: it runs the given Lean 4 code with the local Lean compiler. It also specifies the environment (Mathlib and the core Lean library are available), which removes ambiguity about what the tool operates on. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — run Lean 4 code to check it compiles — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With no sibling tools, the absence of alternatives is expected, yet no preconditions or limits on use are stated.

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