aem_groovy_execute

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 does not mention that executing Groovy scripts can have arbitrary side effects, destructive potential, or require elevated permissions. The description frames it as safe maintenance/automation without warning about the power and risk of arbitrary code execution.

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, economical sentence with no fluff. It states the verb, target, mechanism, and general use case efficiently, though it does not use any structural aids like bullets or examples.

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 powerful arbitrary-code-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a mutually-exclusive parameter pair (script vs scriptPath). The description does not explain return values, behavior when both parameters are supplied, timeout semantics, or safety/authorization requirements. It is too sparse for correct and safe invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as what happens when both script and scriptPath are provided, which is a notable gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the basics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') with a clear resource ('Groovy scripts on AEM instances via Groovy Console') and a stated purpose ('maintenance and automation tasks'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which target bundles, components, configurations, logs, and health checks.

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 some context by mentioning 'maintenance and automation tasks,' which implies use when generic scripted operations are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as Groovy Console availability.

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