script_execute

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

The description implies state-changing behavior but does not disclose potential side effects or risks. With annotations not providing destructiveHint or idempotentHint, more detail would be beneficial. However, it does indicate that scripts can modify host state.

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 with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and common use cases without unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage. It could mention that the script must exist and the host must be reachable, but overall it is fairly complete.

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% and parameter descriptions are clear. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (execute a script), the resource (on a host in Zabbix), and provides specific use cases (remediation, config changes, diagnostics). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like script_get and host_get by explaining that it runs custom 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 mentions use cases but does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid using this tool or prerequisites (e.g., script must exist, agent must be running). It lacks explicit alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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