elisp_eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions evaluating arbitrary Elisp and returning results, but lacks details on safety (e.g., potential side effects, execution environment), error handling, or performance implications. This is inadequate for a tool that could execute arbitrary code.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and result, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of evaluating arbitrary code, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like security risks, execution context, or result formatting, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.

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 100%, with the parameter 'expression' documented as 'A single Elisp sexp to evaluate.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating that it evaluates an Elisp expression. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('evaluate') and resource ('an arbitrary Elisp expression'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on evaluation rather than documentation, completion, or listing functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'variable_value' which might retrieve values without evaluation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a running Emacs instance, nor does it compare with siblings such as 'variable_value' for reading variables or 'function_source' for inspecting code. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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