run_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that steps are 'individually safety-checked and clamped' and returns 'final state plus safety notes', but lacks information on potential destructive behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. Safety transparency is present but incomplete.

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 concise, using bullet points for clarity, and examples for illustration. It could be slightly more compact (e.g., removing the phrase 'Engine lives in sequencer.py...' as it is not directly actionable), but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 complexity (a sequence of moves), the description covers step format, ordering, safety, and return values. It does not explain error behavior or permissions, but with one parameter and no output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% (the schema only defines an array of objects with no constraints). The description provides a detailed specification of five action types, each with their fields (motor, degrees, speed, etc.), adding essential meaning that the schema lacks. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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: 'Execute a choreographed sequence of moves' with examples like 'draw a square or wave'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform single moves (e.g., move_to, stop) by emphasizing the sequencing aspect.

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 implies usage for multi-step choreography, but does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context of sibling tools (individual moves) makes the usage clear, but no formal when-not guidance is given.

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