rba_eval_lua

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the waiting behavior and that results are structured, but it does not mention that executing arbitrary Lua can have side effects or what happens when no clients are connected. This is a partial disclosure but lacking depth.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. It is not as egregiously minimal as a single verb, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only covers the basic 'run and wait' behavior. It omits critical context such as how target selects clients, timeout limits, error handling, and side effects, making it insufficiently complete.

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 does not explain any of the parameters (script, target, timeoutMs, label). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'target' and 'label' from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Lua'), and adds 'wait for structured return values or errors from connected clients,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_send_lua or rba_eval_lua_file. It accurately conveys the core action and expected outcome.

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 phrasing 'Run Lua and wait for structured return values or errors' implies it is the tool to use when you need a response from executing inline code. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like rba_send_lua (no waiting) or rba_eval_lua_file (from file), so it lacks exclusions.

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