unreal_run_python_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses headless execution, output filtering with a default marker ('MCP |LogPython'), and sys.argv delivery with the no-whitespace constraint. But it omits a crucial behavioral trait: dryRun defaults to true, yet the description never says the tool runs in dry-run mode by default — an agent expecting real changes would be misled.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place: mechanism, arg contract, and output contract. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 core contract is well covered: what runs, how args get in, what output looks like. But with no annotations and no output schema, and 6 params, the missing dryRun semantics and the editor-open constraint (allowWithEditorOpen defaults true despite 'headless commandlet') are gaps that could lead an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 33%, the description adds real value for two params: args (delivered via sys.argv, no whitespace allowed) and outputFilter (default marker, regex-based). But three parameters — dryRun, timeoutSeconds, allowWithEditorOpen — go unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving significant gaps unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('existing python script from the repo scripts/ folder'), and a specific mechanism ('headless commandlet'). This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings (unreal_duplicate_map, unreal_probe_actor, etc.), none of which run python scripts.

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?

Implies usage context: the script must already exist in scripts/, and the tip 'have your script unreal.log() what matters' is actionable guidance for getting useful output through the filter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use statement.

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