run_code

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the sandboxed environment and typical return fields (output, success, error, benchmark), which adds some safety context. However, it omits side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, and whether the execution modifies state, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Execute a method in sandboxed environment') and then listing required inputs and outputs. Every sentence is necessary and wastes no words.

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 with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic context (sandbox, return fields) but lacks detail on output structure, error handling, asynchronous behavior, and side effects. It covers the essentials but could be more thorough for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no new semantic information about parameters beyond restating that file and method UUIDs are required and mentioning optional benchmark data, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 executes a method in a sandboxed environment, using specific verb-execute and resource-method. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on execution rather than creation, editing, or analysis, which are covered by other tools like add_method_body or analyze_performance.

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 when to use the tool (to run code) but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like get_method for non-execution retrieval. The context is clear but minimal.

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