rba_run_script_capsule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It usefully discloses that missing permissions block before Lua reaches a client and mentions optional snapshotting. However, it omits other important behaviors like synchronous execution, side effects, and error handling, leaving gaps 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 one sentence with a clear sequential flow, front-loaded with the key phases. It is efficient and every part contributes, though it could be better structured with explicit steps.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the mode enum, target selection, timeout semantics, or return behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without deep schema analysis.

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. It only vaguely hints at snapshotBeforeRun ('optionally snapshot') and possibly syntaxCheck ('Preflight'), but leaves id, mode, target, timeoutMs, and snapshot syntax unexplained. This provides marginal value for understanding parameters.

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 specific verbs (Preflight, permission-check, snapshot, dispatch) and clearly identifies the resource (script capsule). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rba_create_script_capsule or rba_script_preflight by describing the full execution workflow.

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 clearly conveys that this is the full run workflow for a script capsule, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use rba_script_preflight for a dry run'), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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