run_gene

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 execution is local and via rotifer run, but only vaguely states 'Returns execution output' and says nothing about side effects, failure modes, or what the sandbox does. The --allow gating described in the schema is useful but lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and CLI, then the prerequisite, then the return. No filler.

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?

No output schema, so the description should characterize the return value, and 'Returns execution output' is thin. For a 6-parameter execution tool with sandbox-bypass options and no annotations, more behavioral context is warranted, though the prerequisite and CLI reference cover the essentials.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (a local Gene via rotifer run), plus a locating constraint (must exist in genes/). It is largely distinguishable from siblings like compile_gene or test_gene, though it never explicitly names what separates it from test_gene or agent_run.

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?

Gives one prerequisite ('must exist in the local genes/ directory') but no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as test_gene or compile_gene. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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