inscada_run_script

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, but the description does not add context beyond executing a script. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or that the script may alter system state, which would be valuable given the destructive nature.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the action and result. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states the action and return value. Some might want more detail on script execution behavior, but it is sufficient for a minimal tool.

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 describes script_id as 'Script ID' with 100% coverage, but the description does not elaborate on how to obtain the ID or its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Execute a script' and the resource 'on the inSCADA server', and it mentions the return value. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts or search_in_scripts that handle different aspects of scripts.

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 the tool should be used when you need to run a script and get its result, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Usage is clear from context but lacks explicit guidance.

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