algo_run_sandboxed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does add useful context: isolated process, strict timeout, and memory limits. However, 'strict' is vague, and the description does not disclose output format, error handling, or whether network/filesystem access is blocked.

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 with a clear, active verb and a compact parenthetical language list. Every part contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 essential what and key constraints, making basic invocation possible. But since there is no output schema and no annotations, the missing return-value behavior, default language behavior, and sibling differentiation leave notable gaps for an agent selecting among similar tools.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and an enum, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the supported-language list from the enum and does not add extra parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Executes code') and resource ('an isolated process'), and it lists supported languages, so the tool's core function is unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like algo_run_docker or wasm_run_vm_sandbox, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as algo_run_docker or wasm_run_vm_sandbox. The isolation wording implies safe execution, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

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