algo_run_docker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that execution happens in a zero-trust, ephemeral container with no network access, which is important behavioral context. It does not mention output format, exit-code behavior, or resource limits beyond the schema's timeoutMs, but the disclosed isolation and networking traits are significant.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the most important constraints. Every element earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating.

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 schema fully covers parameters and the description conveys core execution context, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the agent should expect as the result: captured stdout, stderr, exit code, or success/failure response. For an execution tool, this is a notable gap, though the essential isolation behavior is well covered.

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 extra value by naming specific Docker images (python:alpine, node:alpine, gcc:alpine), which helps map the language enum values to their runtime environments—something the schema does not provide. It reinforces the execution context without repeating parameter details.

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 a specific action—executing code inside a Docker container—and adds meaningful scope details: zero-trust, ephemeral, and no network access. It is distinguishable from siblings like algo_run_sandboxed by mentioning Docker and networking constraints, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 this is for isolated, network-disabled, ephemeral code execution, but it does not explain when to choose this over algo_run_sandboxed, wasm_run_module, or algo_stress_test. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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