run_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses atomicity and the line-separated format, but omits error behavior, side effects, or whether a debug target is required. The example adds context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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 focused sentence followed by an illustrative example. No redundant words; the structure is direct and easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core essentials (action, format, atomicity) and provides an example. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the output schema and sibling context fill some gaps.

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 parameter is already documented. However, the description adds a concrete example showing how to format commands, which goes beyond the schema's generic description and helps the agent construct valid scripts.

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 'Execute a multi-line x64dbg script' and highlights atomic execution. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_command or ida_run_script, which likely target single commands or other environments.

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 atomic, multi-line nature implies when to use this tool (batch of commands needing to run together), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like execute_command or mention preconditions (e.g., debugger must be active).

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