run_code

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that execution is local, but it never warns that arbitrary commands run with server privileges or mentions sandboxing/rate limits, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and examples parenthetically placed. Nothing is wasted, though it is perhaps too terse for the risk profile of the tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what comes back (stdout, stderr, exit code), which matters greatly for a code-execution tool; that is missing. Annotations cover the safety dimension, so the definition is minimally adequate but leaves a real gap on results interpretation.

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% — cwd, command, and timeout are all documented with defaults — so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about command syntax, escaping, or timeout interaction, which is the baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — executes a shell command locally — and adds concrete examples (compilation, script run). It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, none of which execute code, but there is no explicit sibling routing.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. An agent learns what the tool does but not under what conditions it should reach for it.

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