run_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well. It discloses that output is returned inline, nothing is copied or stored, cwd defaults to the file's own directory, `lang=auto` and `lang=python`/`lang=sage` behave differently, non-zero exits and timeouts are treated as errors with output attached, and timeouts kill the whole process group.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, then adds execution semantics, interpreter details, and error handling. It is dense but every sentence contributes relevant information without obvious padding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior and process execution semantics. It does this well, including output contents, error conditions, and timeout behavior, but it does not address edge cases such as output truncation, environment handling, or permission requirements.

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 already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema, especially for `lang` behavior, cwd semantics, and the fact that timeout kills the entire process group, though it does not discuss `args` or `stdin`.

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: run an existing file and return exit code, duration, stdout, and stderr. It is clearly distinct from general command execution because it emphasizes that the named file is the file that runs, with cwd defaulting to its directory, though it does not explicitly name the sibling `exec` tool.

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 description: use this when running an existing file and wanting inline output. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare itself directly against sibling tools like `exec` or `poll`.

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