eval_ruby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Evaluate arbitrary Ruby code' without mentioning side effects (e.g., modifying the Sketchup model), potential safety risks, error behavior, or return value structure. For a high-powered eval tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. It contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain how the tool integrates with Sketchup, what the return value represents, or any warnings about arbitrary code execution. Given the tool's complexity and high risk, the one-line description is inadequate for an agent to use it safely and 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?

The input schema has one 'code' parameter with zero description coverage, but the tool description clarifies that it is the Ruby code to evaluate. This adds basic meaning, but it does not specify expected code format (expression vs statement), multi-line support, or whether a return value is expected. Minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 ('Evaluate') and resource ('arbitrary Ruby code in Sketchup'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific operations like create_component or set_material. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'arbitrary Ruby code' implies it is a catch-all for custom operations not covered by dedicated tools, but it does not explicitly state this or name alternatives. There is clear context but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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