run_gdscript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Run an arbitrary GDScript snippet' and fails to mention execution context, side effects, or output behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool that runs arbitrary code.

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 short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool that executes arbitrary code. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary context.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the high-risk nature of arbitrary script execution, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the execution environment.

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 has one parameter, 'script', with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'GDScript snippet' to clarify that the parameter expects GDScript code, providing some semantic value beyond the raw schema. However, no additional detail about format or constraints is given.

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 tool's action ('Run') and resource ('GDScript snippet'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'validate_gdscript' and 'attach_script'. The scope ('arbitrary') adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that executing arbitrary code may have side effects or suggest safer alternatives like 'validate_gdscript' for validation.

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