Run Eden Input Script

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: held inputs are released after failures and by default at normal completion, and analog steps are rejected until supported. This adds useful context about side effects and limitations without contradicting the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear action statement, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is 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 validated sequence with an array of steps, session handling, and a release flag—the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid step, how session_id is used, or the expected behavior of release_at_end in enough detail. The output schema exists, but the input schema leaves steps as loosely-typed objects, and the description offers no guidance on how to construct them.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the structure of the 'steps' array, the purpose of 'session_id', or the behavior of 'release_at_end' beyond a tangential mention of releasing held inputs. The description provides almost no parameter-level semantics, leaving the agent to guess how to construct valid steps.

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 ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('a validated sequence of waits, key/button actions, Switch button chords, touches, and visual-change checkpoints'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling single-action tools like eden_press_key, eden_press_button, and eden_touch_screen by focusing on running a sequence rather than a single action.

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 automation sequences but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual input tools. It provides a usage constraint by noting analog steps are rejected until protocol support, but does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. This is clear context but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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