9 tools with basic schemas and minimal descriptions. All tools have input schemas with typed parameters (positive), but descriptions are extremely terse (10-50 chars, well below the 194-char baseline). No output schemas documented. Parameter descriptions are sparse or missing context. No error handling guidance. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern but lack clarity on distinctions (e.g., code_wait vs code_batch_wait vs code_continue). No idempotency hints, no permission gates, no recovery guidance. Composition is reasonable (separate tools for status/wait/result), but descriptions don't explain WHEN to use each variant or what distinguishes them.

• Expand all descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example: 'code_wait' → 'Wait for a single code execution job to complete. Pass the job_id returned by code(). Returns the final result or error. Use code_batch_wait for multiple jobs.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: code_status returns {status: 'pending'|'running'|'completed'|'failed', progress?: number, result?: object, error?: string}.
• Add parameter constraints to descriptions. Example: 'timeout_seconds (1-3600): Maximum seconds to wait before returning. Default 30.'
• Add error recovery guidance. Example: 'If job_id not found, the job may have expired. Call code() to start a new execution.'
• Clarify tool distinctions in descriptions. Explain when to use code_wait (single job) vs code_batch_wait (multiple) vs code_continue (extend session).

Inferred effective spec: 2025-06-18+.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry