skill_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution context ('workspace directory') but lacks critical details: required permissions, security implications, error handling, output format, or execution environment constraints. For a script execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentences efficiently convey the core purpose, supported script types, and execution context with zero wasted words. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 script execution tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, permission requirements, error behavior, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured coverage, more contextual information is needed for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

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 ('Execute a script') and resource ('from a skill's scripts/ directory'), specifying supported file types (Python, Shell, JavaScript, TypeScript). It distinguishes from file_edit/read/write by focusing on script execution rather than file manipulation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'skill' or 'skill_resource' 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 provides context ('bundled with a skill', 'executed in the workspace directory') that implies when to use this tool, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'skill' or 'skill_resource'. It mentions script types but offers no guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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