evaluate_expression

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It mentions 'can modify program state' but lacks detail on what modifications occur, potential side effects, or permissions required. Behavior is opaque beyond basic capability.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be structured to separate purpose, usage, and behavior for better readability while remaining brief.

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 modifies program state and has no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or expression context. Missing important behavioral details for a potentially destructive operation.

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 33% (only frameId has a description). Description adds value for the expression parameter by stating it can read and modify state, but does not elaborate on expression syntax or constraints. sessionId and frameId not further clarified.

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 verb 'evaluate' and resource 'expression', with additional context that it can read and modify program state. It is distinct from sibling debug tools like get_local_variables or step_into, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 vs alternatives such as get_variables or get_local_variables. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where it should be avoided.

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