run_luau

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution and return behavior, but fails to warn about potential side effects, client crashes, or security implications of running arbitrary code. 'Power tool' is a vague hint rather than a clear safety warning, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 two short sentences plus a two-word fragment, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the first sentence defines the action and output, and 'Power tool' conveys risk and advanced usage. There is no wasted text.

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 high complexity (arbitrary code execution) and absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It briefly mentions return values but omits crucial context such as side effects, whether the execution is synchronous, how errors are reported, and what 'best-effort' serialization means in practice.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'code' parameter. It implies the parameter is the Luau code to execute, but does not elaborate on expected format, limitations, or error handling. The description provides some meaning beyond the schema, but not enough for full parameter understanding.

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 arbitrary Luau in the Roblox client, which is a specific verb+resource. It also explains the output (captured output plus serialized return value), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on specific game objects or remotes.

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 'Power tool' implies this is for advanced or unrestricted use, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The use case is implied by 'execute arbitrary Luau' but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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