script_test_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses constraints (only JavaScript direct support, Python requires local env) but does not describe the behavior of test execution (e.g., whether it runs in a sandbox, what side effects occur, or if it modifies state). The description adds some value but lacks depth for a code 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and main constraint. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated sections) but remains concise and readable.

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 executes code, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the output (e.g., whether it returns stdout, stderr, exit code) and how results are presented. No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate. It also does not mention any safety guarantees. For a tool that runs scripts, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters adequately described in the schema. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, which states code is JavaScript code to test and testInput is passed as a command line argument. Therefore, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: testing generated scripts. It specifies the verb (test run) and resource (generated scripts), and distinguishes itself by noting that only JavaScript is directly supported while Python requires a local environment. This scope differentiates it from sibling tools that generate 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for testing generated scripts, with the constraint that Python support requires a local environment. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the constraint implies usage boundaries. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit exclusions.

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