trmm_run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes governance by Arbiter policy and ProofLink receipts, but fails to mention whether the tool returns output, if it is blocking, or what side effects occur (e.g., script execution results). This is a significant gap for an action tool.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds necessary constraints. No fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after execution (e.g., result format, success indication). It does not, leaving agents uncertain about return behavior. Essential context for an action tool is missing.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'agent ID or hostname', 'script ID (integer)'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('a saved script'), and the target ('Tactical RMM agent'), with identifiers ('agent ID and script ID'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like trmm_agents, trmm_health, and trmm_summary, which are query-oriented.

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 mentions a required scope ('integrations:trmm:invoke'), offering some usage guidance, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. No explicit context for selection among siblings.

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