fm_run_script_and_assert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (run script and check result) but omits critical details such as error handling, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on mismatch.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, behavior on failure, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references 'scriptName' and 'expectedResultCode' ('checks whether the result code matches the expected value') but does not explain the 'scriptParam' parameter or the default value of 'expectedResultCode'.

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 verb 'Runs' and 'checks' with the resource 'FileMaker script' and 'result code'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'fm_run_script' which lacks the assertion step.

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 implies the tool is for running scripts with result checking, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like 'fm_run_script' or 'fm_run_script_with_globals'. No when-not or alternative contexts are given.

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