run_cad_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: execution is asynchronous and output lands in a new job directory. However, it says nothing about what is returned (e.g. a job id), whether the call blocks, or how to retrieve results.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parameter hint is appended efficiently after the core action, though the semicolon splice makes the sentence slightly dense.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, one sentence is thin. The agent is not told what the call returns, where the new job directory lives, or how to obtain results, which are essential for an async runner.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Provide Lua/text assets by filename' usefully explains that the assets map is keyed by filename, but script_text is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb (Run), a specific resource (CADFEKO Lua), and qualifies scope with 'asynchronously in a new job directory.' This distinguishes it from run_post_script, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 run_post_script, get_job_status, or the other run_* siblings. The 'asynchronously' cue hints that polling via get_job_status follows, but that is inference, not guidance.

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