execute_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the execution model via Main()/Unload(), mentions ScriptContext for Harmony, logging, and arguments, and notes that some scripts run until unloaded. It does not explicitly state the side-effect/risk profile of arbitrary C# execution, error behavior, or cleanup guarantees beyond optional Unload().

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 core definition is front-loaded, and the library scripts are organized in a clear bulleted list where each entry carries selection-relevant information. Somewhat long, but the length is justified by the number of built-in script variants and their differing arguments.

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?

Covers invocation path and args, supported code constructs, lifecycle hooks, and the available library scripts with their parameters. The main gaps are the lack of return/output behavior and error handling, which is more significant given there is no output schema.

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 schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating library script argument patterns (typeName, maxResults, action, etc.) and tying args to ScriptContext.Args, going beyond the generic schema description.

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?

Opening sentence names the specific action (compile and run), resource (C# script file), and environment (Unity runtime). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compile_script and list_scripts by covering execution, and further clarifies scope with supported constructs and library scripts.

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 establishes clear usage context: use this tool when a C# script needs to be compiled and run in Unity, including advanced scenarios like MonoBehaviours, Harmony patches, and private member access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the built-in library script examples give concrete invocation use cases.

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