Execute Local Code Task Compactly

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

It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: self-preflighting of routing, a 'bounded' execution model, and the requirement that supervised runs force full-diff Claude review. This gives an agent actionable expectations about control flow and review processes, which the annotations' destructiveHint alone does not provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. However, jargon like 'preflights routing' is introduced without elaboration, slightly reducing clarity. Overall it remains appropriately sized and front-loaded with its identity as a preferred bounded executor.

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?

With 11 params, nested routing and validation objects, no output schema, and a destructive profile, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return behavior, the meaning of 'bounded', rollback/attempt defaults, and how the routing object should be populated, leaving significant operational gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining key parameters like task, workspace, editableFiles, validation, or routing fields. It only alludes to 'sensitive decision' and 'routing' implicitly, leaving required pins undefined.

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 identifies the tool as a 'bounded local executor' that 'preflights routing itself,' which conveys the core function of executing local code with built-in routing. It distinguishes itself as 'preferred' and 'compact' among siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with execute_local_code_task or execute_local_code_plan_compact.

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 offers partial guidance: it is 'preferred' and sensitive auth/credential work requires Claude to 'explicitly resolve the sensitive decision' before supervised execution. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over its many siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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