run_do_selected_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only selected lines are executed, but fails to mention potential side effects (executing code), output/return values, or whether the operation is safe or reversible. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence in Korean, completely free of redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and earns its place as a compact, efficient description.

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?

Although the schema covers parameters, the tool executes code and likely has side effects, yet the description provides no context about what happens after execution, what is returned, or any warnings. With no annotations or output schema, this is a significant gap for a code-execution tool.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (file_path, start_line, end_line), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (execute) and scope (only selected lines of a do file), which differentiates it from siblings like run_do_file (whole file) and read/write/edit operations. The Korean phrase '선택된 라인들만 실행' is specific and leaves no ambiguity.

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 provided on when to choose this tool over run_do_file or other alternatives. The description only states what it does, without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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