mcode

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by warning about the default 'full' permission that edits files and runs shell commands without asking. It also discloses that the tool blocks until mcode settles and returns only the final result plus stats with session prefixes. These details are not present in the annotations (which only have destructiveHint=true) and provide critical behavioral context.

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 somewhat long but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then explains the return format and continuation, and ends with a caution. It front-loads the most important information (new task) and avoids redundancy. The caution is useful but adds length; overall it is efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: return format (session id and session-key prefixes), blocking behavior, timeout handling (run killed still returns session id), and permission implications. It also explains the transport modes and model parameter. It lacks some details about the output stats structure, but overall it covers the key aspects an agent needs to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented. The description does add a small amount of context (e.g., that mcode cannot see the conversation and that cwd is usually omitted), but these are also present in the schema's parameter descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('a NEW task in the local MiniMax Code agent'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by stating this starts a new task while continuing later is done with mcode_reply. It also distinguishes from other mcode tools (models, running, send, etc.) by focusing on task initiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (start a new task) and implies when not to (for continuing a session, use mcode_reply). It also gives context about the separate CLI agent and its own context window, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternatives for other scenarios (e.g., checking running sessions).

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