execute_code_stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the key streaming behavior, progress notifications, and that it returns the same result shape as execute_code. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or execution environment, which would be valuable for a 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds relevant differentiator without redundancy, making it well-structured and efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and streaming behavior, and the presence of an output schema may document return values. However, with six parameters and no annotations, the description alone is incomplete for fully using the tool safely and effectively; it lacks parameter guidance and potential side-effect warnings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the six parameters (language, code, stdin, no_net, timeout, max_output_kb) beyond their names. The description's mention of 'execute code' is generic and does not add meaningful parameter-level detail.

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 code and streams progress and partial output, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts with execute_code, making the tool's purpose and scope 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by contrasting with execute_code: it should be used when streaming progress and partial output are needed, so agents can see output before the process finishes. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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