run_lua_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful safety framing with 'bounded, trusted' and signals its role as an escape hatch, but it does not disclose side effects, execution limits, return behavior, or error handling for an arbitrary Lua script.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words. The safety framing, tool role, and usage preference are all communicated efficiently and front-loaded.

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?

For a powerful escape-hatch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important invocation details: what the script can affect, what the tool returns, what 'bounded' means in practice, and how 'filename' behaves. More guardrails are needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description adds some context by clarifying that the script targets Aseprite's Lua API, giving slight semantic weight to the 'script' parameter. However, it provides no explanation of the 'filename' parameter and does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Run') and resource ('bounded, trusted Aseprite Lua script') and frames the tool as an escape hatch. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name a specific sibling tool to differentiate from beyond the general 'dedicated tools' category.

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?

'Escape hatch' plus 'dedicated tools are preferred' gives clear context that this tool should be used as a fallback after considering specialized tools. It does not list explicit when-not conditions or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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