execute_code

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

The description mentions privileged mode and that the result must be in a string variable, but it lacks details on side effects, error handling, security implications, or any destructive potential. With no annotations to fill the gap, the behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, power/privilege, usage guidance. No redundant information, but a brief warning or constraint could be included without harming conciseness.

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 a simple one-parameter code execution tool, the description covers the basics but omits critical context such as error behavior, return format, and security notes. Given the tool's power, more completeness is expected.

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 describes the 'code' parameter as '1C code text', and the description does not add any further semantic information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is provided.

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 'Execute arbitrary code in 1C language' and specifies it as a powerful, privileged tool. It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use when other tools don't fit', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises 'Use when other tools don't fit', providing clear context for when this tool should be considered. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, leaving some implicit guidance.

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