execute_lua

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a potentially dangerous code execution tool. It only states basic functionality and does not mention risks like server crashes, security implications, side effects, or execution constraints, which is a critical omission.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds value: first states function, second guides usage. It is 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 generic code execution tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, error handling, execution timeout, or potential side effects. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, and the description does not add any new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 that the tool executes arbitrary Lua code on the DCS server and returns the result. It explicitly positions itself as a fallback for custom operations not covered by other tools, distinguishing it from the specific sibling tools.

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 advises using this tool 'for custom operations not covered by other tools,' which provides clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, such as warnings against using it for tasks that are better served by existing tools.

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