run_python

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions executing code and returning output, but omits critical details like sandboxing, process isolation, timeouts, side effects, error handling, and whether filesystem/network access is permitted. For a code execution tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence, clear, and front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Although an output schema exists, this is a code execution tool that carries significant complexity and risk. The description omits essential context about the execution environment, installed packages, resource limits, security implications, and interaction with the filesystem. An agent would not have enough information to invoke this tool safely and effectively.

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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. The verb 'Execute Python code' implies the 'code' parameter holds the Python source, but the 'cwd' parameter's purpose is completely unexplained. Since the description does not explicitly reference parameters, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Execute Python code directly and return the output' is specific, naming the exact resource (Python code) and the action (execute), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_shell, run_file, and run_cpp by clarifying it runs Python code inline. It goes beyond a simple restatement of the tool's name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_file (for Python files) or run_code (for generic code execution). It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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