siril_run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that Python scripts are executed via pyscript, but does not mention that running a script may modify images, fail partway, require specific Siril state, or produce side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a script execution tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean two-item argument list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The input parameters and execution modes are documented well enough to make a basic call, especially given that an output schema exists. However, for a tool that runs arbitrary multi-line scripts, the lack of side-effect disclosure and the absence of explicit guidance about when this tool is appropriate limit completeness.

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 fully compensates by explaining script_body as 'Full script contents' and kind as 'ssf' for command scripts or 'py' for Python executed with pyscript. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema and clarifies how to construct each argument correctly.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Run a multi-line Siril script (.ssf command script or .py via pyscript).' It differentiates from the sibling siril_run_command by emphasizing multi-line scripts and script file types, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.

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 implies this tool is for multi-line scripts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siril_run_command or what the exclusion conditions are. The 'multi-line' qualifier hints at the intended use, but no alternative tools are named.

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