script_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that debug mode returns line-level error stack traces, but says nothing about side effects of executing arbitrary code, sandboxing, permission requirements, or the default timeout behavior, all of which matter for an execution tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the debug clause could be dropped since the schema already covers it.

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?

For a four-parameter code-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits sandboxing/permission expectations, default timeout, how document_id interacts with execution, and what a normal (non-debug) result looks like.

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 75% – 'debug' and 'timeout' and 'document_id' are documented in the schema, while 'code' is not. The description's mention of debug mode largely restates the schema's own description, adding no format hints, limits, or timeout default beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Execute arbitrary ExtendScript code' plus the debug-mode behavior. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling export_executeScript, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool when deciding how to run a script.

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 indication of when to use this versus the sibling export_executeScript, nor any prerequisites. The word 'arbitrary' hints at a general-purpose escape hatch, but the agent gets no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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