run_script_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'appropriate interpreter' but does not state that this executes arbitrary code, how output/errors are returned, whether the timeout is enforced, or any side effects. For a script execution tool, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action, but it may be too brief to convey essential usage details. It earns a 4 because it is efficient though not fully informative.

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 complex tool (script execution with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain interpreter resolution, working directory behavior, output format, error handling, or how it differs from execute_shell_command_code. The description leaves too much for the agent to discover at runtime.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the meaning of 'scriptPath' relative to cwd or how arguments are passed. Since the schema is already sufficient, score stays at baseline.

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 specifies a clear action ('Run a script file') and resource, and the phrase 'with the appropriate interpreter' hints at automatic interpreter selection, which differentiates it from sibling tools like execute_shell_command_code. However, it lacks explicit mention of the script's extension/shebang handling or how it differs from running shell commands, so it is not fully distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as execute_shell_command_code or execute_streaming_command_code. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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