run_python_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: execution modes with their characteristics (speed, isolation, state persistence), timeout enforcement specifics, and session state maintenance. However, it doesn't mention security implications, error handling, or resource limits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Execution modes) and front-loaded purpose. Most sentences earn their place by providing essential information, though the execution mode explanations could be slightly more concise.

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 (code execution with multiple modes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers parameters, execution behavior, and usage guidelines well, though could benefit from mentioning security considerations or error scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: explains what each parameter does, clarifies which parameters apply to which execution modes, and provides default values and constraints. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Python code'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_python_file' (which executes files) and 'clear_session' (which manages sessions). It specifies flexible execution modes, making the scope explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each execution mode: 'inline' for most tasks (fast, maintains state) and 'subprocess' for environment isolation or different Python environments. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code execution rather than file operations or session management.

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