execute_lua

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares 'full game scripting power', frames the tool as 'administrative', and explains the return mechanism (rcon.print with helpers.table_to_json) and how to obtain the agent character via remote.call. It stops short of stating failure behavior, timeouts, or whether code runs synchronously in the game tick.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the operational hints, then the guardrail — a sensible ordering with little waste. The bare line breaks between sentences make the technical hints read slightly disjointedly, but no sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter, high-risk escape hatch with an output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return convention, and scope limits. Only the operational edges (errors, execution timing, side effects on game state) are unstated, which is a minor gap given the structured fields available.

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 0% and the single 'code' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate; it does, by specifying that the code is Lua, how to emit return data, and the remote.call pattern for accessing the agent. It never explicitly binds this to the parameter name or states exec/error semantics, keeping it below a 5.

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 explicit administrative Lua') plus the scope boundary ('advanced game/mod capabilities not covered above'), and explicitly contrasts with the dedicated gameplay siblings. An agent can identify the tool and its niche without opening the schema.

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?

Gives both directions: use it for advanced capabilities not covered by the other tools, and 'use the specific tools for ordinary gameplay' otherwise. It also adds a scope guard ('respect the user's task scope'), which is the right kind of guidance for an escape-hatch tool.

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