execute_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions that 'path takes priority over script' and describes default values for delay/interval/loop_times, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., does it run in background?), error handling, or what 'Success or error message' entails. For a tool that executes scripts on a device, this is inadequate.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 complexity (script execution on a device with looping/delay options), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks context on safety, device requirements, or execution environment. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values, but broader behavioral context is missing.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters clearly: it defines optional vs. priority, default values, and the meaning of special values (e.g., '0 for infinite' loops). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on script/path format expectations.

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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('an AutoX.js script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_adb_shell_command' or 'stop_all_scripts' that might also involve script execution or control.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., device state), comparison to similar tools like 'execute_adb_shell_command', or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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