run_python

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'secure E2B sandbox' which hints at isolation, but doesn't detail execution limits, error handling, output format, or security constraints. For a code execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the core functionality and another suggesting use cases. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence could be more specific to earn a perfect score.

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 complexity of executing arbitrary Python code in a sandbox, the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on execution behavior, safety, return values, or error conditions. The tool's purpose is clear, but critical contextual information is missing for safe and effective use.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (code and timeout). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as code syntax examples or timeout implications. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute Python code in secure E2B sandbox.' It specifies the verb (execute) and resource (Python code) with the context of a secure sandbox environment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'run_javascript', which performs similar execution for a different language.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Use for data analysis, calculations, testing,' suggesting appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_javascript' or 'wolfram_calculate', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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