Run Script

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: fire-and-forget, asynchronous execution, and log output. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) but could detail potential side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: first states action, second explains behavior and follow-up. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

Covers key aspects: async execution, log output, follow-up tool. Lacks explicit mention of script existence prerequisite, but given sibling tools, this is minor.

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?

Input schema already fully describes both parameters (routerId, name) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 it executes a named RouterOS script asynchronously, with output going to the system log. This distinguishes it from siblings like manage_script (script management) and run_command (direct command execution).

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?

It advises using get_log after execution to see results, providing clear next steps. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like run_command or specify when not to use it.

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