eval_ruby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'evaluate arbitrary Ruby code' but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose security risks (e.g., code execution), performance impacts, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes arbitrary code.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (executing arbitrary code) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover safety, performance, or usage context. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more behavioral disclosure is still required for adequate understanding.

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 description mentions 'Ruby code', which aligns with the 'code' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds some meaning by specifying the code type, but it doesn't compensate fully for the coverage gap, such as explaining syntax or constraints.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'arbitrary Ruby code in Sketchup', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_component' or 'export_scene', which are more focused on CAD operations rather than code execution.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing Ruby code or Sketchup context, or exclusions, like avoiding it for non-code tasks. Without this, users might misuse it for operations better handled by siblings like 'create_component'.

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