ha_run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral implications. 'Ejecuta' implies an action but does not disclose whether it changes state, requires confirmation, has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes scripts.

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 concise and waste-free, but it is under-specified for a tool with three required parameters. Being short is positive, but the single sentence lacks any structural guidance or useful detail beyond the tool name's meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the script, what confirm means, what variables are for, or what the agent should expect afterward.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the required parameters: entity_id, variables, and confirm. An agent cannot tell what format entity_id expects, what variables should contain, or why confirm is required. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('ejecuta') and resource ('script de Home Assistant'), making the core operation clear. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like ha_trigger_automation or ha_call_service by targeting the script domain, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ha_call_service, ha_trigger_automation, or ha_turn_on. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or whether a confirmation is expected, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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