codebook.runAll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Execute all cells' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on completion (e.g., output generation, state changes). The description adds only the 'in order' constraint, leaving critical behavioral traits 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Execute all cells') and includes only essential qualifiers ('in CodeBook', 'in order'). Every element earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (executing all cells likely involves significant side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'execute' entails (e.g., running code, generating outputs), what happens if cells fail, or what the agent should expect after invocation. For a potentially high-impact tool, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a high score for not adding unnecessary parameter information, though a perfect 5 would require explicitly stating 'no parameters required' to eliminate ambiguity.

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 action ('Execute all cells') and target resource ('in CodeBook'), with the qualifier 'in order' providing important sequencing context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like codebook.runCell (single cell) and codebook.getState (read-only), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't specify what 'CodeBook' refers to in this context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a CodeBook must be open), compare with codebook.runCell for selective execution, or warn about potential side effects of running all cells. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.

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