test_script

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the script runs in a sandbox transaction with rollback by default. However, it does not mention what happens if sandbox is false, side effects, auth requirements, or error handling. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavioral aspect but omits details about return values, failure modes, and how parameters like 'database' and 'connection' affect execution. The schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall completeness is average.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the input schema. While schema coverage is 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions), the main description does not clarify the purpose or usage of any parameter, leaving the 'delimiter' parameter wholly undocumented and the others only partially clarified.

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 verb 'Execute' and resource 'script', and adds the key context of 'sandbox transaction (ROLLBACK by default)'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'execute' or 'run_script', which may have similar functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'execute', 'run_script'). The description does not indicate prerequisites, limitations, 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.