rba_execute_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only restates parameter names (syntax checks, delay, stop-on-error). It does not explain what happens on execution, how mode/target affect behavior, what results are returned, or the potential side effects of running code.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently with no wasted words.

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 is complex (7 params, no output schema) and has meaningful behavioral nuance (mode, target, timeout, side effects). The description covers only the barest outline and lacks critical details needed for safe and correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It only hints at files, syntaxCheck, delayMs, and stopOnError, leaving mode, target, and timeoutMs unexplained. This is insufficient for such a high parameter count.

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 executes multiple workspace Lua files in sequence, with syntax checks, delay, and stop-on-error control. This distinguishes it from single-file execution tools like rba_execute_file or rba_send_lua_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies batch execution via 'multiple files' but gives no explicit use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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