run-script

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'read-only', which is valuable, but fails to describe output, side effects, error conditions, or any constraints. A more complete description would include what happens after running the script (e.g., returns results) and any required permissions.

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 a single sentence, containing no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded. However, it may be too terse; a slightly more informative description (e.g., mentioning script names are predefined) would still be concise but more helpful.

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 has two parameters (one with nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the script outputs, whether it returns results, or how to handle errors. For a tool that runs scripts, an agent needs more context to use it safely and effectively.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which is adequate but not exemplary. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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') and resource ('script in After Effects'), and specifies it is read-only, distinguishing it from many sibling tools that modify or add effects. However, it could be improved by noting what types of scripts are available (e.g., predefined scripts) to further clarify scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions 'read-only', it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. An agent would need to infer usage from context.

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