run_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it waits for completion, what is returned (script exit code, stdout, status object), whether it is destructive or requires elevated permissions, or whether calls can be retried safely. Only the implicit 'this performs an execution' signal is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an execution tool.

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?

For a tool that executes arbitrary scripts on a device with a nested free-form parameters object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain execution semantics, return behavior, and risk. Almost all of that is missing, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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%, so device_id, script_id, and the free-form parameters object are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning, such as expected shape or examples of the nested parameters object or how built-in action names differ from script IDs in practice.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a script or built-in action on a device'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_device or list_devices. The dual scope ('script or built-in action') slightly blurs whether it overlaps with actions like reboot_device, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings, even though reboot_device and api_post are plausible alternatives for executing actions on a device. No prerequisites, no constraints, no exclusions are given.

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