run_cpp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that it returns compiler errors or program output, which are key behavioral outcomes. However, it does not disclose other potentially important behaviors such as side effects of program execution, timeouts, or how the working directory (cwd) affects execution. It is adequate but not richly detailed.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the main purpose and return value. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple compile-and-run tool with only two parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the tool's purpose, the type of code, and the return. However, it omits any explanation of the 'cwd' parameter, which could affect program behavior. The overall context is sufficient for typical usage.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the 'code' and 'cwd' parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'C++ code', which vaguely relates to the 'code' parameter but offers no explanation for 'cwd'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Compile and run C++ code') and identifies the resource (C++ code), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_python or run_shell. It also explains what the tool returns (compiler errors or program output), which further clarifies its function.

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 clear context: it is for C++ code specifically. This implies when to use it (whenever C++ code needs to be compiled and run) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. Since siblings exist for other languages and generic execution, the context is clear, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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