run_do_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'run in Stata' without revealing whether it requires Stata to be installed, whether it captures output, whether it can modify data, or whether it blocks during execution. This leaves the agent without essential safety and side-effect information.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. It could be more informative, but for a simple one-parameter tool, it is appropriately brief.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must be complete. It fails to mention expected outcomes, error handling, or how Stata execution is observed by the agent, making the context incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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?

The single parameter file_path already has a clear schema description ('실행할 do 파일 경로'), and the tool description adds no additional semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 runs a Stata do file, using the verb '실행' (run) with the resource 'do 파일', which establishes the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling run_do_selected_lines, leaving the scope (entire file vs selected lines) implicit in the name rather than the description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_do_selected_lines or browse_do_files. It only states the action, without context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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