gretl_run_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the GUI requirement and safeMode parameter blocks shell commands, but it fails to explain what happens on execution (e.g., return value, error handling, side effects) or the implications of the many optional parameters.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and no redundant information. It front-loads the core action, but could be improved by including essential behavioral details without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, script execution with GUI dependencies), the description is too sparse. It omits critical context about expected outputs, error states, and the interplay between parameters like safeMode and requireGui.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds only the context of running via gretlcli and the default GUI requirement, which provides marginal extra 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 the action ('Run any Gretl/Hansl script') and resource ('through gretlcli'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gretl_run_commands or gretl_run_script_file, which also involve running scripts or commands.

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 default behavior (requiring the GUI) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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