execute_indesign_code

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that executing arbitrary code can be destructive, cause errors, or affect the document. The given sentence is too minimal to convey the tool's power and risks.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be restructured to front-load critical context (like potential risks) while remaining concise.

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 nature (executing arbitrary code) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context, such as common use cases, error behavior, or return value (e.g., result of execution). It falls short of being complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description ('ExtendScript code to execute'). Baseline for high coverage is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 'Execute custom InDesign ExtendScript code' clearly states the tool's function: running arbitrary ExtendScript. It distinctly differs from sibling tools which perform specific actions like 'add_page' or 'apply_character_style', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many specific tools. For example, it doesn't mention that this should be used only when no built-in tool exists, or warn about risks of arbitrary execution.

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