Run Cached Code

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

The description does not disclose that running cached code may execute arbitrary code with side effects, whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, or how results are surfaced. With readOnlyHint=false already signaling a mutation-capable operation, the description adds little behavioral depth beyond the name and title.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the verb 'reuse' is slightly vague compared to 'run' or 'execute.'

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 an execution-oriented tool with mutation potential, the description is too thin: it omits when to use it versus execute_code/submit_code, whether it returns a run reference, and what side effects may occur. The output schema likely covers return values, but the invocation context is incomplete.

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%: cache_id and params are already clearly documented, including that params is a complete replacement object and never interpolated into Python source. The description's 'new structured inputs object' reinforces this, but the schema carries the real semantic weight.

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 states a specific action ('Reuse unchanged cached code') and identifies the resource ('cached code') plus the key input concept ('new structured inputs object'). It is distinct enough from execute_code, which implies running new code, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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 phrase 'unchanged cached code' implies the primary use case: when code is already cached and only inputs change. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over execute_code, submit_code, or list_recipes, and no alternatives are named.

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