execute_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return value (stdout/text) but says nothing about execution side effects, errors, timeout behavior, or safety implications of running arbitrary scripts. This is a significant gap for a script execution tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core identity and return behavior efficiently, earning every word.

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 two-parameter script execution tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, timeout behavior, and any guidance on when to use this wrapper instead of run_python. The output schema does not compensate for these missing behavioral and usage details.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either the script or timeout parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the raw property names, so an agent cannot determine how to format the script or what timeout values are valid.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility wrapper around run_python and states it returns stdout/text, which conveys that it executes scripts and returns their text output. It distinguishes itself from run_python, though 'wrapper' is more a description of its nature than a direct action verb.

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?

Naming run_python as the underlying tool provides useful context and implies run_python may be the preferred native alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this wrapper versus run_python, nor any exclusions or compatibility scenarios.

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