run_jsx

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It warns 'run trusted code only,' which hints at risk, but it does not explain that executing code can arbitrarily modify or destroy the document, nor does it clarify the nature of the result. The warning is some insight, but the full behavioral profile is incomplete.

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 two short clauses with no filler. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, making it efficient and immediately scannable. Every part 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?

The tool is complex (general code execution), yet the description omits any mention of return values, error behavior, or side effects. With no output schema or annotations, the agent has no idea what to expect after execution, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 both code and waitForResult described, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It merely restates that code is arbitrary, which is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 it runs arbitrary ExtendScript code in InDesign, a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it is for custom automation not covered by other tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use for custom automation not covered by other tools,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies using specific sibling tools when applicable. This is a direct usage directive with implicit alternatives.

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