tqs_run_script

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant context: runs in a separate process, captures stdout, supports returning structured data via 'result', and explicitly warns that it can create, modify, and delete project files. These details go beyond the annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 a general-purpose script execution tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains how to return data, capture stdout, run in a separate process, and warns of destructive potential. However, it doesn't clarify the effects of 'cwd' or 'timeout', which are relevant for execution behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains the 'code' parameter indirectly (assign to 'result' to return structured data, stdout is captured), but provides no information about 'cwd' or 'timeout'. This leaves two of three parameters semantically unexplained.

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 it runs Python in a separate process with TQS modules importable, and positions itself as 'the escape hatch' for anything other tools don't cover, distinguishing it from the specific sibling 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?

The description explicitly gives usage context: 'The escape hatch for anything the other tools do not cover.' This tells the agent when to use it (when other tools are insufficient), though it doesn't name specific alternatives or state when not to use it.

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