run_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Run a script file directly,' which gives zero detail about side effects, permissions, output, failure modes, or safety considerations. Executing a script is potentially destructive or side-effectful, and the description does not warn or explain anything beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and adds a critical distinction (not via cron) in a compact form. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the clarity it provides.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool (arbitrary code execution) with no annotations and no output schema. The description is extremely minimal, lacking any mention of side effects, prerequisites, return behavior, or relationship to script-management tools. For such a powerful and risky operation, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a descriptive meaning (path, content, filename). The description adds only 'ad-hoc execution' context but does not clarify parameter relationships or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides no additional parameter-level value.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('a script file') with a specific scope ('directly', 'ad-hoc execution'). The phrase 'not via cron' explicitly distinguishes it from scheduling tools, making the purpose unambiguous. This exceeds the baseline of just naming the tool and differentiates it from siblings like create_cron or list_scripts.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is for ad-hoc, immediate execution rather than scheduled execution. The exclusion of cron is explicitly stated, which helps guide selection against cron-related tools. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit 'use this when' versus 'use that when' guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

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