run_hx_script

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that wait defaults to false (non-blocking), timeout, or job handling. The output schema is not described, so return behavior is unclear.

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?

Extremely concise at 10 words, but this is under-specification, not efficient conciseness. No structured breakdown of parameters or behavior; every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not cover necessary detail.

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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an existing but undescribed output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of any parameter, return value, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with inadequate context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero parameter explanations. It does not clarify the meaning of script_path, executable enum values, extra_args, wait, timeout_sec, or job_name. The agent must guess from parameter names alone.

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?

Description states verb 'Launch' and resource 'Avizo or AvizoToGo with a `.hx` script path', clearly indicating the tool runs a script. However, it omits the 'amira' executable option and could better differentiate from sibling 'launch_avizo' which likely launches without a script.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_avizo_python' (for Python scripts) or 'launch_avizo' (no script). No explanation of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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