evaluate_expression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral context that evaluation occurs in the 'top stack frame,' but it does not disclose error handling, return format, or potential side effects of the evaluated expression beyond what the annotations imply.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's simplicity, one parameter, read-only annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly names the action and context, and the schema covers the parameter. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, but that is accounted for in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 describes the single parameter `expression` as 'Python expression evaluated in the top frame of the active stack,' which fully covers its semantics. The description repeats the same concept without adding examples, syntax details, or edge-case behavior, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' and identifies the resource as 'an expression in the top stack frame,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling debugging tools like step_* and get_*. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives such as get_variable_details for inspecting specific variables. Usage must be inferred from context.

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