rba_eval_lua_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it waits for return values/errors but does not disclose side effects of running arbitrary Lua, required client connections, timeout behavior, or whether execution is synchronous. This is a significant gap for an execution tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise, but its brevity omits critical context that would be expected for a tool with multiple parameters and no additional annotations.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, how target and timeoutMs behave, or the implications of running code in connected clients. The agent lacks enough context to use it safely.

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% for 4 parameters, and the description only mentions 'workspace Lua file' which maps to the path parameter. It provides no insight into label, target, or timeoutMs, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from parameter names and schema constraints 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 clearly states the tool runs a workspace Lua file and waits for structured return values or errors from connected clients. The verb 'run' and resource 'workspace Lua file' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like rba_eval_lua or rba_execute_file.

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 implies usage when you need to run a Lua file and get structured results, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_send_lua_file or rba_execute_file. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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