execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'no AI generation' and '1 credit', which adds useful context about limitations and cost. However, it lacks details on execution behavior such as time limits, resource constraints, error handling, or output format. For a code execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first phrase and adds critical constraints ('no AI generation', '1 credit') efficiently. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's essence.

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 complexity of a code execution tool, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on execution environment, security implications, return values, and error cases. The mention of 'sandbox' and 'credit' provides some context, but overall, it doesn't provide enough information for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 50% (only the 'code' parameter has a description). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the 'architecture' parameter or provide examples for 'code'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, leaving half the parameters undocumented. The baseline is adjusted downward due to the coverage gap.

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 purpose: 'Execute YOUR code (no AI generation). Just run it on the sandbox.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('YOUR code'), and context ('sandbox'), distinguishing it from AI generation tools like 'generate'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rerun' or 'history', which might also involve code execution.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'no AI generation' and 'Just run it on the sandbox', implying this is for direct code execution rather than AI-assisted generation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rerun' (which might re-execute previous code) or 'generate' (which involves AI). The mention of '1 credit' hints at a cost, but no explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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