secureexec

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses sandboxed execution (implies safety), proof hash generation, and monetary cost. However, it does not explain what 'sandboxed' entails, whether state changes occur, or how the proof hash is used.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical cost detail. Efficient and front-loaded with key information. However, it may be too brief for full comprehension, missing a slight amount of structure.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core points but lacks details on expected output, input payload specifics, and behavioral nuances. Could be more complete for agent invocation.

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% for the single 'input' parameter, which already has a description. The tool description adds cost and sandbox context but does not elaborate on parameter format or usage beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'sandboxed tool execution with proof hash' and mentions cost, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are analytical or query-based. The verb 'execution' and resource 'tool' are specific, but the exact nature of the execution is abstract.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context for selecting this over siblings like 'risk_check' or 'research'. The cost is mentioned but not as a usage guide.

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