stata_run_dofile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that each call overwrites the session's latest running log in .stata-mcp/cache/, automatically returns the log content, and does not modify the user's original do file. These are important side effects and constraints. It does not mention potential blocking behavior or error handling, but the disclosed information is substantial and accurate.

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 composed of a few sentences, with the primary purpose stated first. It includes essential behavioral details (log overwriting, return value, non-modification) without unnecessary verbosity. The structure is clear and efficient, though it could benefit from a slight reordering to front-load the most critical behavioral note about log overwriting.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (log content). It covers the key aspects an agent needs to know: setting up session_id for related tasks, the behavior of the log, and the safe handling of the original file. It does not mention return format or error handling in detail, but for a run tool with this parameter set, it is fairly complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the session_id semantics (same session for related tasks) and clarifying that log_mode is a compatibility parameter that always uses 'replace' in version 1.1. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to use the parameters correctly.

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's purpose: running a do file in Stata GUI. It specifies the resource (do file) and the environment (Stata GUI). It is distinct enough, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'stata_run' tool, which could be a potential confusion point. Overall the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 useful usage context: it explains the session_id concept (same session for original/check/continuation do files) and notes the behavior of overwriting the latest log. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stata_run or stata_append_dofile. The context is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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