run_python_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two important behaviors: workspace boundary enforcement and virtual environment selection. However, it does not mention potential side effects of script execution, error handling, or how output is returned. This is moderate transparency, lacking richer behavioral details.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides valuable context (boundary, virtual env). No filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the essential context for successful invocation: what the tool does, the workspace constraint, and the Python environment behavior. Given that an output schema exists (handling return values) and the parameter schema is comprehensive, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It loses a point because it does not explicitly address how failures are reported or whether the script runs in a subprocess, which are relevant 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 100% coverage of all three parameters (path, args, timeout) with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level information, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a Python script file.' The verb 'execute' combined with the resource 'Python script' is specific and distinguishes it from generic tools like run_cmd or run_powershell. The name reinforces the purpose, but the description adds the key distinction of being Python-specific.

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 provides clear context for usage by noting the script must be within the workspace boundary and that it uses the active virtual environment's Python. This helps the agent understand constraints and prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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