Run a HomeyScript script

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

The description discloses that the script executes (implying potential side effects) and that the return value is reported. It also transparently notes that log() output is not visible to the server, which is a behavioral detail. The annotation destructiveHint: true aligns with the destructive nature of running arbitrary code, so no contradiction.

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 verbose and rambling, repeating the concept of returning values multiple times and using informal phrasing (e.g., 'so this is also how a script gets debugged', 'return whatever needs checking rather than logging it'). It could be condensed into a few clear sentences without losing meaning.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to handle debugging. It does not explicitly mention error handling beyond noting errors are reported with the line, but that is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 sole parameter 'script' has a clear description in the schema ('The script id, or its exact name.'). The tool description does not need to add further meaning, and the schema coverage is 100%. The parameter is well-defined and unambiguous.

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 runs a script and reports the returned value. It uses a specific verb (run) and resource (script), distinguishing it from other script-related tools like delete or get. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this over others.

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 practical guidance on how to use the tool, such as returning values instead of relying on log output, and suggests returning intermediate objects during development. It implicitly indicates that this tool is for executing scripts and obtaining results, which helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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