Execute Code

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

The description discloses important behavior: security restrictions (no System.IO, System.Net, System.Diagnostics), auto-wrapping of bare statements, and shows an example. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, which is consistent with executing code. While it does not mention side effects or undo behavior, the security and auto-wrap details add significant transparency beyond the annotation.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, follows with security constraints, then clarifies auto-wrapping, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a code execution tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what code can be run, restrictions, execution speed, and a usage example. It does not explicitly mention error handling or return values, but given the tool's open-ended nature and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (code and undo_label) are already documented. The description adds value by explaining code auto-wrapping and providing an example, but does not elaborate on undo_label beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 executes C# code in the Unity Editor via Roslyn, with a specific resource (Unity Editor) and verb (Execute). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting its speed advantage over recompilation.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for fast iterative code execution (10-40x faster than recompile). It implies an alternative (recompile) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. The speed comparison gives practical guidance for selection.

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