execute_powershell

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description warns 'Runs with the same privileges as the driver process — treat as unrestricted code execution.' This adds critical behavioral context about security and impact, fully satisfying transparency requirements.

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 three efficient sentences: action, use cases, and security caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, use context, session persistence, privileges, and examples. A minor gap is not describing typical output (e.g., script stdout/errors), but this is expected from raw PowerShell execution.

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 'script' exists, and its schema description ('PowerShell script or command to execute') already provides full meaning. The tool's description adds no additional parameter-level detail, resulting in baseline score.

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 explicitly states the tool runs raw PowerShell scripts on the machine via a persistent session, with examples (registry edits, service control, file inspection). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are specialized UI and browser automation commands.

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 says 'Use for arbitrary automation not covered by another tool', giving direct guidance on when to select this tool. It implies not to use it when a dedicated tool exists, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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