execute_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context (script runs in gateway scope with access to system.* functions) but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or security implications. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the key action stated first. The Args section is slightly redundant but adds clarity. No unnecessary sentences are present.

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 complexity of executing scripts, the description covers the basic requirement but lacks completeness on output format, error handling, and safety considerations. The presence of an output schema helps, but the descriptive text could be more thorough.

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 single parameter 'code' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful information by stating it is Python code to execute on the gateway, which goes beyond the type. However, it lacks details like syntax or length limits.

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 tool executes a Python script on the Ignition gateway and returns the result. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_script and list_scripts by focusing on execution rather than retrieval.

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 mentions a prerequisite (server started with --gateway-url) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_script or write_tag. No exclusions or alternative tools are suggested.

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