ms_run_materialscript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the disabling mechanism but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or resource consumption. For a tool that runs arbitrary scripts, this is insufficiently transparent.

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 sentence plus a two-part condition. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy, starting directly with the action verb 'Run'.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and its potential danger (arbitrary script execution), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on script format, return values, error behavior, and prerequisite setup beyond the env var.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no semantic meaning to any of the five parameters. The script, args, name, cores, and project parameters are not explained beyond their types and defaults in the schema.

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 'Run a MaterialsScript Perl script', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions the disabling mechanism, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ms_castep or ms_forcite that handle specific computations.

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 explicitly notes it is disabled by default unless the environment variable MS_MCP_ALLOW_ARBITRARY_SCRIPT is set to 1. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it lacks references to alternative tools for non-arbitrary script execution.

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