script-run_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals a trust prerequisite and the use of Blender's script operator, but does not describe execution side effects, failure modes, or security implications beyond the trust note.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no fluff—every word contributes. The key action, mechanism, and a critical condition are all packed into one concise phrase.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core action and a key trust condition. Missing aspects include how errors/output are surfaced and any safety caveats beyond 'trusted'.

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% and the only parameter (path) has only a title, not a real description. The tool description adds little beyond the title by merely saying 'Python file'; it does not specify path format, required extension, or how to reference files.

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 ('Run'), names the resource ('Python file'), and identifies the mechanism ('Blender's script operator'), with a condition ('when Python execution is trusted'), making it clear and distinct from related tools like script-reload.

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?

It implies a use case—running a Python file via the script operator—and attaches a trust condition, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as system-execute_python or specify when not to use it. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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