ida_run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that it runs raw IDAPython code, which implies arbitrary side effects, but it does not explicitly mention risks like database modification, IDA crashes, or that output comes via print(). The schema param description adds print guidance. Overall, the core behavior is disclosed but not elaborated.

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 two sentences, immediately states the action and scope, with no filler.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately explains how to invoke the tool. A warning about side effects would improve completeness, but it's not required for basic use.

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 schema covers the only parameter 'code' with 100% coverage, describing what to provide, how to get output, and what modules to import. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'raw IDAPython code inside IDA Pro'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as an 'escape hatch' for uncovered operations, which is an 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 phrase 'Escape hatch for any operation not covered by other tools' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: as a fallback when specialized tools are insufficient. This is superior to no guidance.

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