acs_run_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it merely states the action without revealing any side effects, required permissions, or execution details. Running a script likely has consequences, but the description gives no hint of them.

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 short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan. It could include more useful details, but on pure conciseness it scores well.

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 is a mutation action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when the script runs, whether it is destructive, or what the expected result is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as '脚本文件名' (script file name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('运行' = run) and resource ('TR-069 脚本' = TR-069 script), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acs_list_scripts or acs_get_script, which only list or retrieve scripts, not execute them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as acs_exec_raw or acs_set_sequence. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be appropriate.

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