execute_script_on_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a task is created, a task ID is returned, and the session must be kept alive. Missing details about failure handling, permissions, or side effects, but provides adequate transparency for a write operation.

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 (4 sentences plus Args/Returns) with a clear structure: main action, requirement, behavioral note, important warning, and parameter list. No unnecessary words, but the Args section is as brief as the schema titles.

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 (script execution), the description covers the basic workflow but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, or script availability. Output schema is not provided, but the return value (Task ID) is mentioned. More context about what ADOM is would help.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameters (adom, script, device) with brief one-word descriptions (e.g., 'ADOM name'), but does not explain format, expectations, or how to find the script name. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 ('CLI script on a specific device'), and differentiates from sibling tools like execute_script_on_device_group by specifying a single device target.

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 context: the script must have target=remote_device, and execution creates a task that should be monitored. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with siblings like execute_script_on_devices.

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