resolve_exec

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: no sandbox (full Python in server process), how to return values via 'result' variable, that printed output becomes stdout, and that objects come back as handles. This is thorough and warns about potential dangers.

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 well-structured with the core purpose first, followed by usage advice, return details, an example, and safety warning. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly.

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 the complexity and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and safety. It lacks explicit error handling information but is otherwise fairly complete for an exec tool. Missing details like syntax errors or crashes are minor gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'code' parameter, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that the parameter is Python code, shows how to structure it with an example, mentions bound names, and the return mechanism. This compensates for the sparse schema.

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 it runs Python against the live Resolve connection, specifies it is for anything other tools miss, and distinguishes itself by being a general-purpose escape hatch. It includes a concrete example and lists bound names, making the purpose and scope explicit.

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 using it for anything other tools miss and recommends reading the API endpoint first to get correct signatures. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or prefer specific sibling tools, which would improve guidance.

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