execute_main_process_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, sandboxing or security implications of main-process code execution, whether script results are returned, or error behavior. For an arbitrary-code-execution tool this is a significant disclosure gap, though the 'main process context' phrasing at least conveys the execution environment.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for the information conveyed. It is efficient, though brevity here overlaps with under-specification rather than careful economy.

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 high-risk arbitrary-code-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot know what the script should return, how failures surface, or how this differs from the sibling 'execute' 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies 'script' contains JavaScript but never explains its format, return expectations, or what 'sessionId' identifies (the schema only shows a UUID pattern). Both required parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a clear verb (Execute) and resource (JavaScript in the Electron main process context), which is meaningfully more specific than the bare name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'execute', which an agent would reasonably assume also runs JavaScript, leaving genuine ambiguity about which context each targets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over 'execute' or any other sibling, no stated prerequisites beyond the required session, and no warning about the elevated risk of running code in the main process. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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