Execute script

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, signaling potential side effects. The description adds context about the execution environment (server-side, path resolution relative to the user's document directory) and optional inputs. However, it does not disclose the return value (script output, errors, etc.) or further side-effect details, so the description only partially enhances the annotation-provided behavioral picture.

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 short, focused sentences. Each sentence delivers essential information: the core action, path handling, and optional parameters. No redundant or filler content, and the most critical information appears first.

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 tool has no output schema and is a script execution tool, the description could be more complete about what the caller receives (e.g., script output, success/failure indication). It covers the action well but leaves uncertainty about the response and any post-execution effects, which is a notable gap for such an operationally significant 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that scriptfile paths can be absolute or relative to the user's document directory, which is absent from the schema. It also groups the optional parameters in a concise way, reinforcing the relationship between document and input data.

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 function: 'Execute a Banana JavaScript file on the server (`/v2/script`)'. It identifies the specific action (execute), the resource (Banana script file), and the endpoint. This distinctly separates it from the many data-retrieval siblings like banana_accounts or banana_balance, which are all read-oriented.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a Banana script needs to be run—and the sibling list shows no other tool for script execution. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use this for custom scripts, not for standard data queries'), so it lacks the full explicit guidance needed for a 5.

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