run_applescript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Run arbitrary AppleScript' without disclosing potential side effects (e.g., destructive actions, security risks, blocking behavior). The agent is left uninformed about execution consequences.

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?

One sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, directly conveying the tool's value.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits important context like what the script returns, error handling, security warnings, and prerequisite conditions, which are critical for a tool that executes arbitrary code.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes 'script' as 'AppleScript code to execute'. The description adds no new meaning beyond that, just rephrases the tool's action. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Run arbitrary AppleScript' (verb+resource) and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'for complex automation that other tools don't cover', indicating it handles cases beyond specific UI automation tools.

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?

Description implies this tool is for tasks not covered by sibling tools like type_text, move_mouse, etc., but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. The guidance is clear but implicit.

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