run_maxscript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that execution is arbitrary and returns a result, but does not warn about potential side effects, destructive operations, or security implications—critical for a code 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?

Two concise sentences, no filler, with the primary action and return behavior front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a one-parameter escape hatch, it adequately explains what it does and what it returns. Lacks explicit examples or error handling details, but these are not critical for such a generic tool with no output schema.

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 only parameter is 'code', and the description clarifies that it is MaxScript to execute. Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the raw string type by connecting it to MaxScript and the execution behavior.

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 explicitly states the tool executes arbitrary MaxScript and returns the last expression's result, differentiating it as an escape hatch for cases not handled by typed sibling tools. This clearly establishes its purpose relative to the other tools.

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 provides clear context by indicating the tool is for anything not covered by typed tools, which implies a use-case boundary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, only alluding to 'typed tools below'.

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