Single tool 'run_code' has a clear, well-written description (169 chars) that explicitly states the stateless, per-call sandbox behavior and irreversible nature. Input schema is properly defined via Zod with type validation. However, the parameter 'code' lacks a description in the schema (only the tool description mentions it), and there is no documented output schema structure. Error handling is minimal, no guidance on recovery or categorization. The tool follows verb_noun naming ('run_code') correctly but lacks composition patterns (no batch variants, no pagination). Overall solid for a single-purpose tool but missing documentation depth expected of production-grade servers.

• Add a description to the 'code' parameter in the Zod schema: 'Python code to execute (Jupyter Notebook syntax). Must be self-contained; state does not persist between calls. Avoid network requests and file system writes outside /tmp.'
• Document the output schema explicitly: 'Returns {results: Array<any>, logs: Array<{type: string, value: string}>}. results contains the output of the last expression; logs contains stdout/stderr from execution.'
• Enhance error messages with recovery guidance. For example, if sandbox.create() fails, return: 'Failed to create sandbox. Verify E2B_API_KEY is set and valid. If the issue persists, check E2B service status.'
• Add constraints to the tool description: 'Code execution is limited to 5 minutes (configurable via E2B_TIMEOUT_MS). Each call runs in a fresh sandbox; use print() or return values to capture output.'
• Consider adding a 'dry_run' boolean parameter (optional, defaults to false) to allow agents to validate code syntax without execution, reducing accidental side effects.