ninja_run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs scripts/actions, which implies potential mutation, but it does not specify if the operation is asynchronous, what effects it has, or any safety considerations. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the action verb. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return value, execution model, and parameter dependencies (e.g., selecting between SCRIPT and ACTION). The reference to the companion tool is good, but overall the description is incomplete for confident usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already provides meaning for all parameters. The description adds little beyond stating the overall purpose, and does not elaborate on parameter relationships or usage rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Run a custom script or built-in action on a device.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., no other 'run' tools are present). The reference to a companion tool for discovering options further clarifies the scope.

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 mentions using ninja_get_device_scripting_options to see what's available, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query tools). Usage context is implied rather than directly articulated.

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