Execute AutoLISP

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

The description discloses the symbol denylist, the non-security-boundary status, the quote-handling behavior, and the fact that AutoLISP has more write channels than the denylist enumerates. This significantly exceeds the annotation (readOnlyHint=false) and provides crucial context for safe usage.

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 efficient, with each sentence adding value. The example is concrete and the warning about security is essential. No wasted 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?

For a high-risk execution tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, risk, and prioritization over alternatives. The security warnings are particularly relevant for a code-execution tool.

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 already fully covers the expression parameter with an example (100% coverage), but the description adds important semantic details: how double quotes are treated and what the denylist attempts to block. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description.

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 an AutoLISP expression, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the COM backend and explicitly directing users to prefer typed tools, making its unique role clear.

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 guidance to prefer typed tools, implying this is a fallback or advanced option. It also notes the COM backend constraint. However, it does not name specific alternative tools, only a general category.

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