run_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'directly' without explaining side effects. Executing arbitrary script code can modify the document or have destructive consequences, yet the description does not warn about this or mention permissions, locking, or error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact argument list. There is no redundant prose or filler.

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 that this tool executes arbitrary script code and has no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to disclose side effects, security considerations, or behavioral boundaries, which is especially important for a high-impact operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but safety-critical context is still missing.

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 missing parameter documentation. It does clarify that doc_id is the ID obtained from open_document and that script is the source code to execute, adding real meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Execute a HWP script macro directly') and identifies the key inputs. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool run_macro, which likely performs a very similar operation.

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 a useful prerequisite: doc_id must come from open_document. But it gives no guidance about when to use run_script versus alternatives like run_macro or run_hwp_action, and it does not state any exclusions.

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