gemini_run_code_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Gemini writes and runs Python code', which is a useful detail, but it omits any safety context: no mention of sandboxing, code execution risks, timeouts, or side effects. An agent gets no warning about executing potentially arbitrary code, which is a significant gap for a code execution tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description is adequate for a simple tool, but could be more complete by noting that code runs in a sandbox, that execution is limited to Python (already implied), and any relevant constraints. It's not incomplete enough to fail, but lacks rich contextual detail.

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 100% (all three params have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning by linking the 'prompt' (description of code to write) and 'data' (optional data to process) to the stated use cases. This is baseline-appropriate but adds little beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Execute' and a clear resource 'code', naming 'Gemini's built-in code execution'. It also lists concrete use cases (answer questions, perform calculations, process data). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gemini_analyze_code_tool, which analyzes code rather than executing it.

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 implies when to use the tool by mentioning 'to answer questions, perform calculations, or process data'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., gemini_query_tool for simple Q&A) or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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