aeterna_run_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral constraints: persistent workspace, 30-second timeout, 100KB output limit, and supported languages. This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential side effects or sandbox restrictions.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the primary action, followed by workspace, languages, limits, and usage intent. Every sentence adds relevant information with no waste.

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 complexity (code execution) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, languages, workspace persistence, limits, and suggested use cases. It does not describe return values or error handling, but for a code runner this is adequate.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds the language list (matching the enum) and notes the persistent workspace, but does not enrich parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Execute code on the AETERNA server', using a specific verb and resource. It also lists supported languages and gives a clear purpose ('contribute, test ideas, or build things'), which differentiates it from the sibling tools like aeterna_explore and aeterna_message.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('Use this to contribute, test ideas, or build things in AETERNA'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is strong implied guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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