esil_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses session behavior (persistent vs fresh) but fails to mention that evaluating an expression can mutate VM state, registers, or memory. It also does not describe the return format or whether side effects persist. This is a significant gap for an 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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the conditional session behavior is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the basic action and session selection, but it omits return-value details, side-effect warnings, and guidance on how this differs from esil_step or esil_run. Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without important context needed to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context about session_id and fresh-session creation, but this largely restates the schema's existing parameter descriptions rather than providing new meaning. It does not clarify address or expression format beyond what the schema already includes.

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: evaluate a raw ESIL expression string and return the result. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from session-management and stepping tools in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from esil_step or esil_run.

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 conditional guidance about session usage: if session_id is provided, a persistent session is used; otherwise a fresh session is created. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over esil_step/esil_run or other ESIL-related tools, leaving tool-selection context implicit.

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