run_python_file

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that 'ExecuteFile mode does not return stdout/eval-result' and suggests a workaround. This is transparent about a key behavioral limitation, though it could mention error handling or file existence checks.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage distinction, third warns about output capture. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and the provided caveat, the description covers core behavior and a critical usage note. It could be more complete by discussing error scenarios or file not found, but it is adequate for a straightforward 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage on the single parameter 'path', already providing a good description. The tool description adds context about relative path resolution against the editor's CWD, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Execute a .py file from disk via the editor's embedded Python.' It specifies the verb, resource, and mechanism, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'execute_unreal_python' by noting it avoids escaping pain for non-trivial 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?

The description explicitly positions this tool as a complement to 'execute_unreal_python' and provides a caveat about output capture, guiding the agent to use 'unreal.log marker + get_log_lines' for results. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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