nina_sequence_load_json

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details (input format, failure condition) but omits side effects like whether the sequence replaces or appends, or any permissions needed. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loading the core action and format, with a key constraint. No superfluous text.

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 single-parameter load tool with no output schema, the description covers the input and a key constraint. It could mention the result (e.g., loads into sequence queue) but is largely self-contained.

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 only parameter 'sequence_json' has a schema title but minimal description. The tool description compensates by specifying it expects a 'raw JSON string' in NINA's export format and referencing the getter tool, adding crucial context despite 0% schema coverage.

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 action ('Load'), the resource ('Advanced Sequence'), and the input format ('raw JSON string'). It also references the companion tool that generates the JSON, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nina_sequence_load_by_name.

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 explicitly mentions a failure condition ('Fails if a sequence is currently running'), implying when not to use it. It also ties to nina_sequence_get_json for obtaining the JSON, but does not explicitly contrast with other load methods.

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