eval_ruby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the code execution can modify the model, return values, or pose security risks. The description is insufficient for an inherently risky code evaluation 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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks important details, making it under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one leaves out critical context.

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?

For a code evaluation tool with a high-risk profile, this description is severely incomplete. It omits any mention of execution environment, error behavior, output format, limitations, or security considerations. Even with an output schema, the lack of behavioral context is unacceptable.

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?

The only parameter 'code' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's field name and type. For a low-coverage schema, the description should elaborate on expected input format or constraints, but it does not.

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 evaluates arbitrary Ruby code in Sketchup, which is a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that perform modeling operations.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any warnings about potential side effects or required privileges.

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