Execute Luau

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions safe serialization of returned values and reporting of compile/runtime timings. It also notes 'authorized,' indicating access control expectations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or error behavior, which is acceptable given the destructiveHint annotation already flags risk.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential output behaviors (serialization, timing). Every phrase serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 high-complexity tool (arbitrary code execution, four parameters, destructive potential, no output schema), this description is too sparse. It omits expected return value structure, error handling, permission prerequisites, side effects, and usage examples, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 only 25% (only clientId has a description). The description maps 'selected client' to that parameter but offers no explanation for 'code', 'chunkName', or 'timeoutMs'. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 function with a specific verb ('execute'), a resource ('authorized Luau in the selected client'), and additional details about serialization and timing. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools, which are mostly read/inspection utilities.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch' or other script-related tools. The phrase 'authorized Luau' implies permission requirements but does not explain when to prefer this tool over others or any exclusions.

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