run_applescript

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'arbitrary' but fails to mention that executing AppleScript can have side effects, modify files, control applications, or pose security risks. It also does not describe what the tool returns or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a tool that runs arbitrary code.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no extraneous words. The argument list is structured clearly. However, it is perhaps too terse for a tool with such broad execution capability, but conciseness is not the issue; missing content is captured in other dimensions.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description lacks essential context for safe and effective use. It does not warn about the potential consequences of running arbitrary AppleScript, nor does it mention that the tool can interact with applications and file system. It provides minimal guidance for an agent deciding when to invoke this powerful tool among many siblings.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. The description restates 'script' as 'AppleScript code to execute', adding little beyond the schema. It does add meaningful meaning for 'timeout' by explaining 'Maximum execution time in seconds', but this is insufficient for two parameters, one of which is a code string with no syntax guidance or constraints.

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 'Execute arbitrary AppleScript code' clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_shell_command, which is for shell commands. The name and description together leave no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for shell commands, run_shell_command should be used, nor does it provide any context like 'use this for automating macOS applications'. The description simply states the function without clarifying the appropriate use case or exclusions.

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