runtime_call_function

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool calls a function and returns a value, but lacks details on side effects, error handling (e.g., if function undefined), or reliance on global scope. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and to the point. No superfluous words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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?

No output schema and no annotations; description should provide more context. Does not explain what happens if the function does not exist or if arguments are invalid. The args array format (positional vs named) is unspecified. Compared to richer sibling tool descriptions, this feels incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('global function name' and 'function argument list'). The description adds marginal value by stating that parameters are passed and a return value is obtained, which is already implied by the schema and tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calls a specified global function with parameters and returns the value, distinguishing it from siblings like runtime_evaluate (evaluates arbitrary JS) and runtime_hook_function (hooks functions). The verb 'call' and resource 'global function' are specific.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., runtime_evaluate for arbitrary JS, runtime_hook_function for hooking). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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