execute_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the disabled-by-default gating, the required server flags, the gateway execution scope, availability of system.* functions, and that the call can change state or actuate equipment. It does not state how errors surface or what permissions the caller needs beyond the server flags.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a tight safety/prerequisite note and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section partially restates 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The definition covers the dangerous-action context and enablement prerequisites well; only error-handling behavior and permission scope are left implicit.

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% for the single code parameter, so the description must compensate. Its 'Python code to execute on the gateway' line adds the language and scope the bare string type lacks, which is meaningful, though it gives no guidance on return conventions or globals available to the code.

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 (execute) and resource (a Python script on the Ignition gateway), and the phrase 'return the result' frames the outcome. This clearly separates it from sibling read-only tools like list_scripts and get_script, which only enumerate or fetch scripts rather than run them.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite (disabled by default, requires --gateway-url and --enable-writes) and warns that scripts mutate gateway state, which tells the agent when this is safe to call. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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