emacs_eval

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that code is executed and the result returned, but it does not disclose that arbitrary Lisp evaluation can mutate Emacs state, run side effects, or behave dangerously based on the evaluated 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 one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and directly communicates the core behavior.

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 powerful arbitrary-code-execution tool, this is too thin. It omits safety warnings, error behavior, result serialization details, timeout semantics beyond the schema default, and the fact that evaluation can have persistent side effects on the Emacs environment.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying that the code is executed and a result returned.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pair: execute Emacs Lisp code and return the result. It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which perform arbitrary Lisp 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many dedicated Emacs operations available among siblings. It does not state that this is for arbitrary Lisp evaluation not covered by specialized tools, nor does it warn about cases where dedicated tools would be safer.

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