Juno Run Script

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (potential writes), openWorldHint=true (external calls), and idempotentHint=false. The description does not disclose side effects, such as whether the script can modify the Juno environment, produce persistent changes, or require specific permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that executes 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 a single sentence, which is concise but could be better structured. It conveys core purpose without wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief follow-up on usage scope.

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 complexity of executing arbitrary scripts and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks details on execution environment, expected outputs, error handling, or when to use this tool over sibling tools like juno_functions_build or juno_hosting_deploy. More context is needed.

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 100%, providing basic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameters like src, mode, profile, and containerUrl.

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 custom JS/TS scripts in the CLI context with access to the authenticated Juno environment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are specific operations (e.g., deploy, build). However, it could be more specific about what 'CLI context' entails.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks context on scenarios where running a custom script is preferred over using specific Juno commands like juno_hosting_deploy or juno_config_apply.

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