chay_python

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely does: it discloses that code is statically scanned beforehand to block dangerous operations such as file deletion and system commands, and defines the return contract (assign to the variable 'ket_qua'). It also warns about cross-machine portability (node lookup by type, reading enum lists from bl_rna). Missing: sandbox/rate limits, timeout, Python version, or what happens when code is rejected — so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then safety/return contract, then portability notes. Every section earns its place and there is no filler, but the multi-block layout is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a single-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior — and it explains the safety scan and the ket_qua return mechanism, which are the two things an agent most needs. It does not mention execution timeouts, error surfacing, or available modules, leaving a small gap for a tool this open-ended.

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 0% (the sole 'code' parameter is documented only as a bare string), so the description must compensate — and it does meaningfully: the code is scanned before execution, results come back via the 'ket_qua' variable, and it gives concrete authoring guidance (query type not name, read enums from bl_rna). It stops short of stating language/import constraints, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('chay Python bat ky ben trong Blender') and explicitly positions itself as the fallback escape hatch ('dung khi khong co tool san phu hop'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the whole sibling list of purpose-built tools without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection condition: use only when no purpose-built tool (the listed siblings like dung_tuong, tao_camera, render_anh) fits. That implicitly routes to alternatives, though it never states a hard when-not or list the exact siblings it supersedes. Clear context, no explicit exclusions — a 4.

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