Evaluate Hara source

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'fresh restricted, no-network, no-browser, non-persistent sandbox' and 'enrolled compatible host.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and environment details. It is concise with no filler or redundant content, earning the highest score for structure.

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 execution environment and prerequisites ('enrolled compatible host') but does not explain parameter details, return behavior, or failure modes. Since an output schema exists, return value explanation is less critical, but the absence of parameter guidance creates a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not mention 'source' or 'limits' at all. While the schema is self-explanatory for some (source is a string, limits has wallMs/outputBytes), the description adds no meaning, leaving agents to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' with the resource 'inline Hara source' and clearly states the environment (fresh restricted, no-network, no-browser, non-persistent sandbox). This distinguishes it from siblings like hara_call or hara_check, which imply different operations.

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 implies usage for evaluating inline code snippets in a safe, isolated environment, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use hara_call vs hara_eval). The provided context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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