run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects such as downloading dependencies, creating temporary environments, or executing arbitrary code. The description only says 'Run a PEP 723 script with uv', which is a high-level action but omits any behavioral details that could be important for an agent to assess before invoking it.

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 without any unnecessary words. It is easy to parse and contains no filler, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, which reduces the need for the description to explain return values. However, the description is too sparse for a script execution tool—it does not convey important context such as whether the script runs in an isolated environment, if it requires network access, or what happens on failure. This makes the tool moderately complete, but with noticeable gaps in behavioral context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'script_path', which is described as 'Path to the script.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: running a PEP 723 script with uv. It uses a specific verb ('Run'), identifies the resource ('PEP 723 script'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'run' or 'run_tool' by emphasizing the 'with uv' aspect. This makes it easy to understand what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'run' or 'run_tool'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description, which is minimal.

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