Server has 6 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (execute_code, upload_files, list_session_files, download_file, get_health). Descriptions are present (avg ~120 chars) but lack actionable guidance on when to use each tool vs alternatives. Parameters are typed with enums where appropriate (lang, detail). Critical gap: no output schemas documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for chaining. Error handling is absent, no guidance on retryability or recovery. Security concern: session_id and user_id parameters suggest stateful execution, but no audit trail or permission checks visible. Tool composition is reasonable (single responsibility), but stream_execute_code duplicates execute_code with Python-only restriction.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example for execute_code: {stdout: string, stderr: string, exit_code: int, files: [{id: string, name: string, size: int}]}. This enables LLMs to chain results to upload_files or list_session_files.
• Add error recovery hints to descriptions. E.g., execute_code: 'If execution fails with SyntaxError, check code formatting. If timeout, reduce computation or split into smaller steps.'
• Implement permission checks: verify caller has access to session_id before returning/modifying files. Log all access (who, when, what) for audit trails.
• Consolidate execute_code and stream_execute_code into one tool with an optional 'stream: bool' parameter. Reduces LLM decision overhead and maintains single responsibility.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-150 chars with explicit guidance: 'Use execute_code to run Python, Bash, Node.js, Go, or C++ code. Returns stdout, stderr, exit code, and any generated files. For real-time output, use stream_execute_code (Python only).'