run_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about path resolution and workspace restrictions, but it omits other behavioral traits like whether execution is synchronous, how errors are reported, or whether side effects are possible. It is adequate but not rich.

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: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with relevant constraints. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool executes script files and has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description covers supported file types, path handling, and workspace boundary. Missing details like timeout behavior or environment setup are partially captured by schema defaults and context, making the overall description reasonably 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%, with all three parameters described. The description adds extra meaning for 'path' by explaining its resolution relative to the current working directory, but it does not enhance understanding of 'args' or 'timeout' beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 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') and the specific resource ('PowerShell (.ps1) or batch (.bat/.cmd) script file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cmd and run_powershell, which target inline commands rather than script files.

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 clear usage context: it handles script files with specific extensions and enforces workspace boundary constraints. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios, so it stops short of full 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.