trmm_run_script

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

The description discloses the required scope and mentions governance by policy and ProofLink receipts, adding useful context beyond the raw tool name. However, it does not warn about the potentially destructive nature of running arbitrary scripts or describe side effects, which is a notable gap given there are no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by one sentence on operational context. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no verbose or redundant language.

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 no output schema, yet the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., script output, receipt, exit code) or whether execution is synchronous. It also lacks detail on the impact of running scripts, leaving a key part of the behavioral context unstated.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (agent_id, script_id), and the description only restates them without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the exact resource ('saved script on a Tactical RMM agent') with the required inputs (agent ID, script ID). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like trmm_agents or trmm_health, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool by stating what it does, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The scope requirement adds context but does not tell the agent when to prefer this over similar tools like itsm_run_test.

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