script.run_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a trust condition but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., scene modifications, errors, permission requirements) or what happens if trust is not set.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys action, resource, and condition.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, security implications, or prerequisites beyond trust. For a tool that executes a script, more context is needed.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds that it is a 'Python file', which is minimal. No information is given about path format, restrictions, relative vs absolute, or error cases.

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 action (run a Python file), the resource (through Blender's script operator), and a condition (when Python execution is trusted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like system.execute_python by specifying the mechanism.

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 condition for use ('when Python execution is trusted'), which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like system.execute_python or script tools, nor does it explain what to do if trust is not enabled.

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