eval_ruby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that arbitrary Ruby code is evaluated, which implies potential mutability and side effects, but it does not disclose whether the code can modify the Sketchup model, whether changes are undoable, or whether there are safety implications.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning: 'Evaluate', 'arbitrary', 'Ruby code', and 'in Sketchup' all add essential context.

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 tool that executes arbitrary code, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context about side effects, execution environment, error behavior, and scope of access. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but not with the many implicit risks of arbitrary code execution.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Arbitrary Ruby code' adds meaning to the otherwise bare 'code' parameter by defining its language and scope. However, it does not specify how the code should be structured, whether a return value is expected, or how results are returned.

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 states a specific verb ('Evaluate'), a clear resource ('arbitrary Ruby code'), and the execution context ('in Sketchup'). This immediately distinguishes it from the specialized sibling tools like create_component or set_material, which operate on specific Sketchup entities.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of whether it should be used as a fallback when no dedicated tool exists, or whether it is intended for advanced users only.

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