execute_game_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 disclosure. It details the execution model (code as body of run(root: Node)), output mechanism (print()), and restrictions (no top-level func definitions, no await). These insights are critical for the agent to write valid 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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the core action, execution context, output method, and key restrictions without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 one-parameter execution tool with no output schema, the description provides complete guidance on code input and behavior. It stops short of mentioning error handling or return values, which could be useful but are not essential for basic usage.

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 schema has no description for the 'code' parameter, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining what the code should contain and its constraints. This gives the agent the semantics needed to provide correct input.

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 executes GDScript inside the running game process, with a specific verb (run) and resource (game process). This distinguishes it from siblings like execute_editor_script, which targets the editor context.

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 phrase 'inside the running game process' provides clear context for when to use this tool (game runtime) versus editor-side alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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