deed_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool refuses to run if the program 'does not check' or asks for capabilities the server does not hand out, and explains the filesystem limitation ('there is no filesystem here, so a program that reads or writes files is refused rather than failed'). This gives the agent accurate expectations about preflight failures and sandbox restrictions.

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, with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional behavioral caveats in the second. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, what it reports (printed output), and the preflight refusal conditions. The absence of an output schema means return values do not need to be detailed.

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?

The input schema already includes a clear description for `source` ('The whole text of one Deed module'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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: 'Run a Deed program's `main` and report what it printed.' It uses a specific verb (run) and resource (Deed program's main), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `deed_check` or `deed_test`, which likely validate or test rather than execute.

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 clearly establishes the tool's purpose as running `main`, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention how it compares to siblings like `deed_check` or `deed_test`. It does provide valuable usage boundaries by stating refusal conditions (e.g., if the program doesn't check or requests unsupported capabilities like file access), giving concrete context for when execution will be rejected.

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