wasm_run_module

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

Description reports that execution happens in memory and that calls are made to exported functions, which are useful behavioral facts. However, with no annotations, it omits safety, sandboxing, side-effect, or return behavior for executing arbitrary WASM, which is material for this kind of tool.

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?

One sentence that packs the core action into eleven words with no filler. The key qualifier 'in memory' is placed early.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after execution (return value, side effects, failures). It does not, so an agent cannot predict the tool's observable behavior beyond the input contract.

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 schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, bringing the baseline to 3. The description's phrase 'exported function calls' only restates the functionName parameter and adds no format or constraint 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?

Clearly names a specific action ('Executes'), the resource ('pre-compiled WebAssembly (.wasm) binary'), and the mode ('in memory with exported function calls'). It is broadly clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling wasm_run_vm_sandbox, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 on when to choose this tool over wasm_run_vm_sandbox or the algo_run_* execution tools. It neither states preferred use cases nor exclusions, leaving the choice to the model.

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