run_luau

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions captured output and serialized return value, but fails to warn about risks, side effects, or permissions needed for arbitrary code execution.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. 'Power tool' is slightly superfluous but not harmful.

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?

For a complex, high-risk tool executing arbitrary code, the description is too brief. No output schema exists, so it should detail return value structure, error handling, and execution context. It only mentions 'captured output' and 'best-effort serialized return value' vaguely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'code' parameter: no syntax, environment details, or limits. It adds minimal meaning beyond the field name.

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 tool executes arbitrary Luau code in the Roblox client and returns output and serialized return value. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fire_remote or get_properties.

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 calls it a 'power tool' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid it, no comparisons to alternatives, and no prerequisites or warnings, which is critical for such a potent tool.

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