execute_indesign_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and the schema warning clearly discloses that the code can access filesystem, network, and system APIs. The environment-variable requirement is also surfaced. It stops short of describing return values or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 compact, front-loaded with a warning symbol and the environment requirement, and contains no filler. It is slightly under-sized relative to the power and risk of arbitrary code execution, but the structure is scannable and efficient.

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 description covers the essential purpose, the required environment variable, and the dangerous capabilities of the code. However, it lacks usage boundary guidance and does not describe what happens after execution or what the tool returns, which matters given there is no output schema or annotations to fill those 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter is already well documented in the schema: 'ExtendScript/JavaScript code to execute in InDesign' plus a danger warning. The main description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('custom ExtendScript code in InDesign'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The word 'custom' and the code-execution scope distinguish it from the many specialized sibling tools that perform fixed InDesign operations.

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 communicates a required precondition (INDESIGN_ALLOW_ARBITRARY_CODE=1) but does not explicitly say when this tool should be used instead of a dedicated sibling tool. It implies an escape-hatch role, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives.

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