run_tcl

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context: it runs headlessly, returns combined stdout/stderr and parsed marker lines, and requires the script to end with 'quit'. This goes beyond annotations by detailing output format and termination requirement.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, but the parameter descriptions are missing, which slightly detracts from completeness.

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 the 12 sibling tools, the description effectively differentiates the tool. It explains output format and basic usage. However, it lacks error handling information and doesn't cover the timeout parameter, leaving some gaps for a flexible tool.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only indirectly mentions the 'script' parameter via usage examples. The 'timeout' parameter is not mentioned at all. No parameter descriptions are provided, leaving the agent uncertain about what to pass for each parameter.

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 runs arbitrary VMD Tcl scripts headlessly, specifying the verb 'run' and the resource 'VMD Tcl script'. It distinguishes from sibling dedicated tools by explicitly listing them as alternatives.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'for any analysis not covered by a dedicated tool' and lists examples of dedicated tools (measure hbonds, etc.), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implication is strong.

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