resolve_eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions that code must return a value and provides an example, but fails to disclose potential side effects, permissions, error handling, or the fact that arbitrary code can be destructive. This is a significant gap for a code execution tool.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The key constraint (must return a value) is upfront, and the example is illustrative. Highly 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains the purpose and a core constraint, but omits error behavior, scope of the resolve object, and safety considerations that would help the AI agent avoid misuse.

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 only parameter, lua_code, has no description in the schema. The description adds essential context: code must return a value and includes an example. This meaningfully supplements the bare schema, though it could detail syntax constraints or scope.

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 arbitrary Lua code against the live resolve object. The example and 'escape hatch' phrasing precisely define the tool's purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that wrap specific operations.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as an 'escape hatch' for operations not wrapped as dedicated tools, implying it should be used only when no dedicated tool exists. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives.

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