eval_ruby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden. It usefully discloses that it runs in the active model context and that the result is stringified via to_s, but it never warns that arbitrary Ruby can mutate or destroy the model, nor mentions error handling or sandboxing.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause earns its place by naming the language, the execution context, and the return format.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them. However, for an unannotated arbitrary-code-execution tool sitting beside read-only siblings, the omission of side-effect and permission context leaves a meaningful 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 schema only gives a bare 'Code' string parameter. The description partially compensates by specifying the language (Ruby) and the eval return convention (result.to_s), but adds no detail on multi-line input, evaluation scope, or error behavior.

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 verb (Execute) and resource (arbitrary Ruby in the active SketchUp model), and clarifies the return handling (result.to_s). It is trivially distinguishable from the read-only siblings get_scene_info, get_selection, and screenshot.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling inspection tools, nor any exclusions or preconditions. Usage is only implied by the tool's nature, so an agent gets no routing help.

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