execute_sandbox_code

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses safety ('safe', 'isolated') and output capture, but omits timeout handling, error behavior, and any resource limitations. These are notably absent for a potentially dangerous code execution tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key characteristics. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format (e.g., does it return captured output directly?), error reporting, timeout behavior, or any constraints on code size or resource usage. An agent would face uncertainty in invoking this correctly.

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 only 33% (only 'code' has a description). The description does not clarify the 'language' parameter's allowed values (e.g., 'js' vs 'python') or the 'timeoutMs' units (milliseconds? Defaults?). It mentions 'JavaScript or Python' but doesn't connect them to the parameter's expected format, leaving critical ambiguity.

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 ('execute'), the resource ('code'), and specifies supported languages ('JavaScript or Python'), plus the sandboxed, isolated nature. This distinguishes it from the unrelated domain-specific sibling tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 use for safe code execution with output capture, which is the obvious purpose given no competing code-execution siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternatives, but since none exist among the listed siblings, the context is sufficient.

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