origin_run_labtalk

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states execution and optional output capture, but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., modifying Origin state, destructiveness), error handling, or security implications. The minimal description leaves much unknown.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and optional output capture. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 potential power (executing arbitrary scripts), the description is too sparse. It omits error behavior, return value details (though output schema exists), and usage hints. For a tool with an output schema and simple parameters, more context would aid correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The two parameters (script, capture_log) are hinted at but not fully explained. The description mentions 'script text' and 'optionally return captured output', but does not clarify the format of the script, what capture_log controls (e.g., log vs stdout), or default behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with only two parameters.

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 LabTalk scripts and can return output. The verb 'Execute' and resource 'LabTalk script text' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this generic scripting tool from other siblings that perform specific Origin operations, which would warrant a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., origin_run_analysis or other scripting tools). It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This is a significant gap for a tool that can run arbitrary scripts.

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