fiji_module_run_script

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that - the run is recorded in fiji_module_script with its code, '#@script(record="false")' opts out for observation-only scripts, nothing is written to disk, and 'python' is Jython 2.7 not CPython. These are real traits an agent would not learn from the structured fields. Remaining gap: no explicit statement of what state a script may mutate.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the paragraph is dense and runs on with implementation trivia (BdvMultislicePositionerView, MultiSlicePositioner class paths, doc paths) that competes with the core instruction. Information-rich but not tight; several clauses could be trimmed or moved to a doc reference.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers async behavior (follow a longer run with fiji_module_status), the wait_seconds constraint rationale, language caveats, and input/output declaration conventions. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, though the specifics of return payload rely on the sibling fiji_module_run.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: inputs are declared in-script with '#@' lines, an object input with one live instance is bound to it, and outputs are declared with '#@output'. This goes beyond the schema's terse per-parameter strings.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a script given as text') and immediately anchors it to a sibling ('as fiji_module_run runs a script file'), so the agent can distinguish text-execution from file-execution without opening either schema. The scope ('same inputs, result, job id and status, nothing written to disk') sharpens the boundary further.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'For what no command does: search the commands first,' sending the agent to fiji_module_search when a built-in command exists, and advises reading scripting/groovy-steps.md before the first script. It lacks a negative-case statement about when this tool is the wrong choice, but the alternative and prerequisites are clear.

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