run_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states steps run in order, that the 'command' action can invoke 'any raw catalog command', and that the tool returns the middleware final state of every detected motor. It stops short of applying details like atomicity, error handling, or blocking behavior, but the key facts are disclosed.

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 opens with the purpose and examples, then presents a precise, compact DSL specification with a single comment. No sentence is wasted; it packs all necessary syntax into a small, scannable format.

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?

For a tool with no annotation and no output schema, the description covers the main usage information: step format, ordering, arbitrary command capability, and return value. The only gap is that field semantics like degrees for move_to versus move_relative are not explained in detail, though they are inferable from sibling tool definitions.

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% and the schema only says 'array of objects' with additionalProperties. The description fully defines the parameters for each step type (move_to, move_relative, stop, wait, command) with exact fields and defaults, adding rich meaning that the schema conspicuously lacks.

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 uses a specific verb and resource in 'Execute a choreographed sequence of steps', with clear examples ('draw a square' or 'wave'). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling single-action tools (move_to, stop, vibrate) by explicitly framing the tool as a sequence orchestrator.

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 phrase 'choreographed sequence of steps' makes it clear the tool is intended when multiple ordered actions are needed, and the step list implies it combines individual actions. However, it never explicitly says 'use this when you need many steps; for a single step, use the individual tool,' so it stops short of explicit exclusion.

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