python_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes 'arbitrary' Python code and has 'full access to the unreal module,' signaling its powerful and potentially risky nature. It could add more explicit warnings about side effects, but it conveys the key risk context.

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 three concise sentences, each providing necessary information: what the tool does, its access level, and when to use it. No filler or 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description provides clear purpose, access scope, and usage guidance. A minor gap is that it does not describe the return behavior (e.g., what output the agent can expect), but given the arbitrary nature of Python execution, this is a modest omission.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('Python code to execute in the UE4 editor'). The tool description adds value by noting 'full access to the unreal module,' which clarifies what the code can do within the execution environment.

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 tool's function: 'Execute arbitrary Python code inside the UE4 editor.' It identifies the specific resource (Python environment in UE4) and the verb (execute). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it handles 'operations not covered by dedicated tools.'

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use for prototyping or operations not covered by dedicated tools.' This indicates when to use and implicitly when not to (when dedicated tools exist). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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