sequence

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full burden. It thoroughly explains the stop_on_change behavior, detailing what structural changes are detected and what are not (e.g., notification popups, bare focus changes). It also specifies limits (20 steps, 30 seconds) and the `then` parameter's role. This provides excellent transparency.

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 yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core purpose, then logically explains behavior, parameters, and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to digest.

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 and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is largely complete. It covers step structure, stop logic, and the then parameter. Minor omissions like return value details are likely covered by the output schema, keeping completeness high.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains the structure of the steps array (objects with op and args) and the effects of stop_on_change and then. While it does not list every allowed op or argument detail, it references sibling tool args, which adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Run an ordered list of actions in ONE call' with a concrete example of a micro-sequence. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pointer, keyboard, etc. by combining multiple actions into a single round-trip.

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 indicates when to use (multi-step sequences) and contrasts with individual tool calls. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives, though the context implies that single actions should use the respective individual tool.

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