agent_execute_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that it generates code/implementation, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), safety profile, or required permissions. This is comparable to a mutation tool with no safety warnings.

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 sentence of 12 words, conveying the purpose without any fluff. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Generate production code').

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 the tool's complexity (agent execution, code generation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output looks like, whether files are written, what prerequisites exist, or how this step relates to the overall agent workflow. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context is incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what schema provides—'step' and 'context' are already described. Per the baseline rule, a score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate production code or step-by-step implementation for a planned step using the ExecutorAgent.' This specifies a concrete verb ('generate'), a clear resource ('planned step'), and the agent type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_plan_task (planning) and agent_review_code (reviewing).

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 phrase 'for a planned step' implies this tool is used after planning, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as agent_plan_task or agent_debug_issue. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions for use, providing minimal guidance.

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