execute_runtime_library

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable behavioral context: errors (module_not_registered, function_not_registered, invalid_arguments), synchronous execution, and the fact that nothing is persisted. This exceeds what the annotations convey.

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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by prerequisite guidance and behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 no output schema, the description names the return fields, explains the discovery prerequisite, covers likely error conditions, and clarifies side effects. An agent has what it needs to decide when and how to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented; the description adds the clarification that args are positional and that request_id is echoed in the response, but it does not need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('one public function from an Algenta runtime library') and states the exact return values. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_runtime_libraries, which only enumerates available libraries.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call list_runtime_libraries first to discover valid module and function names, and it describes the failure modes for unknown or mismatched inputs. This is concrete when-to-use guidance, including the prerequisite step and exclusions.

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