kos_program_eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions evaluating an expression and returning printed output, but fails to disclose potential side effects, state modifications, or requirements (e.g., active kOS connection). The timeout parameter hints at blocking behavior, but side effects remain unclear.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return value. However, it lacks context about prerequisites and differentiation from similar sibling tools, particularly kos_repl_execute.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information beyond the schema descriptions. For 'expression', the schema already notes trailing periods are stripped; for 'timeout_ms', the schema says 'Override default wait timeout,' and the description does not elaborate. No added value.

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 tool evaluates a single kerboscript expression using PRINT and returns the printed value. The verb 'Evaluate' and resource 'kerboscript expression' are specific, and the mention of PRINT distinguishes it from other evaluation tools like kos_repl_execute.

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 such as kos_repl_execute or kos_program_run. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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