execute_script

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

The description discloses that stdout and stderr are captured and returned. It also lists available objects in the context. However, it does not warn about potential side effects like document corruption or performance impacts, but given the absence of annotations, it provides reasonable transparency about the tool's capabilities.

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 (about 6 sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then details context, usage guidance, and arguments. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 and lack of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, available context, usage guidance, and parameter meaning. It could mention error handling or synchronous execution, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an escape hatch tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to provide meaning. The description adds value by explaining that the script runs in FreeCAD's interpreter with access to objects like FreeCAD, App, Gui, and doc. The 'Args: script: Python code to execute.' line is minimal but the broader context sufficiently enhances 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 'Execute arbitrary Python code in FreeCAD's interpreter context.' It identifies the specific verb (execute) and resource (Python code in FreeCAD), distinguishing itself from the sibling tools which are for analysis, inspection, and document operations.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: 'Use this as an escape hatch for operations not covered by the specific tools above.' It also provides concrete examples (creating objects, modifying properties, running macros) that help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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