execute_osascript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions automatic TCC permission dialog handling, dry-run mode, security risk assessment, error recovery, and logging—significant behavioral details beyond simple execution. It does not cover every possible side effect, but the disclosure is substantial and well above a bare-bones description.

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 organized with clear sections (Security Profiles, Features, Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., Features list partially repeats Args), but each section contains necessary information for a complex tool without excessive verbosity.

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, output schema present), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: execution scope, security modes, dry-run, and return type. It does not delve into all edge cases or output schema specifics, but the combination of features, security profiles, and parameter explanations provides a solid contextual foundation for invocation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args:' section defining each parameter (script, execution_timeout, security_profile, enable_auto_permissions, dry_run) including defaults and allowed security profile values. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only lists properties without descriptions.

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 opens with 'Execute or analyze scripts using osascript with comprehensive functionality and automatic permission handling,' which clearly identifies the action (execute/analyze), resource (osascript scripts), and distinguishes from siblings by also covering security analysis and profile handling. The tool's unified nature makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains security profiles and dry-run mode but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the sibling tools get_security_profiles or set_security_profile. Usage context is implied through features, but there are no direct alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria provided.

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