run-script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'read-only,' indicating non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'run' entails (e.g., execution context, output format). This is insufficient for a tool with potential side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 complexity of running scripts in After Effects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on script behavior, return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings like 'run-bridge-test,' leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('script' and 'parameters'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'predefined scripts' from the schema's 'Name of the predefined script,' resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Run') and resource ('a read-only script in After Effects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'run-bridge-test' or other script-related tools that might exist, missing explicit differentiation.

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 provides minimal guidance by specifying 'read-only,' which implies safe usage, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'run-bridge-test'), or prerequisites. Without annotations, this leaves the agent with little context for selection.

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