tool_code_run_sandboxed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions 'limited subprocess' but lacks details on resource limits, side effects, error handling, or output format. Critical safety and execution details 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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but it is too concise, omitting essential information. Could be improved without adding much length.

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?

Given that the tool executes arbitrary code with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It lacks parameter explanations, constraints, and integration context with sibling tools.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (code, timeout, source_text, input_payload, max_output_chars). The function signature mentioned is for the injected code's parameters, not the tool's parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Run validated extraction recipe code') and the resource (a separate limited subprocess), and distinguishes from siblings like tool_code_generate and tool_code_validate.

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 the code should be validated but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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