remote_run_script

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Upload and run' and supported languages, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the uploaded script is cleaned up (despite a cleanup parameter), what side effects occur on the remote system, whether it writes temporary files, or what execution/error semantics are. This is a significant transparency gap for an execution tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded, and contains zero fluff or redundant information. Every word adds value by identifying the action, the resource type, and supported formats. It is a model of concise, clear writing.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, multiple sibling tools, no annotations), this sparse description is incomplete. It does not cover usage context, parameter roles, behavioral implications, or how it relates to the broader tool family. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves too many critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0% description coverage for its 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'inline or local' (mapping to script and local_path) and 'supports ... languages' (mapping to language), but the remaining parameters (args, cleanup, profile, timeout, connection, interpreter, remote_path, output_limit) are entirely unexplained. This is far from adequate for an 11-parameter tool.

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 uploads and runs an inline or local script, with specific verb 'upload and run' and resource 'script'. It also lists supported script types, which gives a sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remote_execute or remote_run_program, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools (e.g., remote_execute, remote_run_program, remote_command_group_run). There is no mention of trade-offs, prerequisites, or scenarios that favor this tool, so the agent gets no decision support.

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