run_r_script

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), placing the burden on the description. It discloses headless execution and output saving but omits side effects, permissions needed, or safety implications beyond the parameter 'allow_dangerous_code' which is not elaborated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though a bit more structure could aid scanning.

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 tool has multiple parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but basic. It does not explain the safety flow (allow_dangerous_code) or the meaning of 'headlessly' in the project context. Somewhat complete but leaves gaps.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for most parameters (coverage >80%), so the description adds limited extra meaning—such as the mention of logs, session info, and result JSON. 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Run', the resource 'project R script', the mode 'headlessly', and outputs saved (logs, session info, result JSON). It effectively distinguishes from sibling econometric-specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_did, run_regression_fixest). There are no context cues or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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