run_idc_script

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the execution is sandboxed, if there are side effects on the database, or any security implications. Without annotations, the description should cover these aspects but does not.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose and adding a brief usage note, but it is not unnecessarily verbose.

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 that there is an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a script execution tool with no annotations, more contextual completeness about error handling or scope limitations is warranted.

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?

There is only one parameter (code), and the description provides no additional context beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what format or constraints the code string should follow.

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 states the tool executes IDC script code and returns results, which is clear. However, there is no differentiation from the sibling tool execute_idapython, which serves a similar purpose for Python scripts, thus missing a chance to disambiguate.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_idapython, or on prerequisites such as the need for an active IDA session. The description is generic and lacks usage context.

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