run_project_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that scripts are allow-listed and that the tool is disabled by default because repository scripts execute code, which is important safety context. However, it omits what happens on disallowed scripts, timeouts, working directory, and output/return behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the key restriction front-loaded. Efficient, though the second sentence could be slightly more precise about enablement.

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 an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It should cover enabling behavior, failure modes for non-allow-listed scripts, and what the caller gets back; these are missing.

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. It mentions the package-manager ecosystems but does not explain the 'packageManager' enum, what 'auto' means, or how the 'script' string maps to package.json entries, leaving key parameter semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: runs an allow-listed package script from package.json, and names the supported package managers. It is distinct from the sibling file/git tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with anything.

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 implies the use case (execute a defined project script) and notes it is disabled by default, which hints at a prerequisite. But it does not say when to choose this over e.g. analyze_project or how to enable it, leaving the agent to infer conditions.

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