run_reascript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions same permissions as any ReaScript, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., project state modification), error handling implications, or performance risks. Serious omissions for an arbitrary code execution tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose, followed by usage guidance and permission note. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 power (arbitrary code execution) and no output schema, the description should address error handling, return value type guarantees, and state change warnings. It lacks these, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Only one parameter (code string) with 0% schema coverage. Description adds context about API access and return string, which aids understanding, but does not specify code format requirements or error behavior. Partially compensates for schema gap but not fully.

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 executes arbitrary Lua code in REAPER's ReaScript environment with full API access, and explicitly distinguishes it from dedicated tools. The verb 'execute' and resource 'Lua code' are well-defined.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for anything not covered by a dedicated tool' with concrete examples (advanced routing, item editing). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is otherwise clear.

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