squire

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'fresh Linux containers' execution environment implying isolation, but lacks details on container lifecycle (cleanup/persistence), side effects, output format, or resource constraints. 'Fresh' adds some behavioral context but coverage is incomplete for a code execution tool.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with verb 'Run'. Every word ('small', 'fresh', 'across') adds specific meaning about scope and environment. Length is appropriate for the parameter 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?

Given 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the execution model but leaves gaps regarding return values, success/failure indicators, and interaction patterns between 'code' and 'file' parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description maps 'inline snippets' to 'code', 'staged scripts' to 'file', and 'target images' to 'targets', providing conceptual framing, but does not add syntax details, constraints, or mutual exclusivity rules beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('Run'), resource ('small inline snippets or staged scripts'), and execution context ('fresh Linux containers across supported target images'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'test', 'build', or 'compile' by emphasizing lightweight, containerized verification.

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 'small inline snippets' implies lightweight, quick verification use cases, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose 'verify' over similar siblings like 'test', 'bench', or 'run'. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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