inject_code

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It says 'temporary', which hints at non-persistent effects, but it does not state whether the injected code is executed, whether it can disrupt a running server, whether cleanup occurs, or whether the operation is reversible. For a tool that injects arbitrary Pawn code, this lacks the safety-relevant behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Create a temporary Filterscript'), then names the mechanism ('compile it'), and finishes with the contextual tag 'Hot Injection'. Every word carries meaning.

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?

For a code-injection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits important contextual details: whether the server must be running, what effect the compiled script has after injection, whether the temporary script is cleaned up, and what risks or side effects may occur. The single-parameter schema is well documented, but the operational context is incomplete.

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% for the single 'code' parameter, and that schema description already states 'Pawn code to inject into OnFilterScriptInit'. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('temporary Filterscript'), and adds a distinct mechanism ('compile it (Hot Injection)'). Among siblings this is the only tool described as creating a temporary script for injection, which clearly separates it from compile_pawn, write_pawn_script, and compile_and_load_pawn.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention trade-offs, prerequisites (such as a running server), or cases where a persistent script or regular compile would be preferable. The parenthetical 'Hot Injection' implies a runtime use case, but no explicit usage direction is provided.

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