mc_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 so: it discloses the 10-second run cap, the error short-circuit default, and exactly what the response contains on a timeout (stoppedAt, remaining, hint). It also explains the resumption protocol (re-call with steps from stoppedAt onward), which is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then ops, then the time-budget caveat and resume instruction. Dense but each section earns its place; the op enumeration is long yet necessary given the opaque item schema. Minor redundancy between the '10 seconds' prose and the budgetMs default/limit.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description still documents the return shape on the failure path (stoppedAt, remaining, hint) plus the recovery loop. Combined with the op list, budget behavior, and error policy, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 100% for the three top-level params, so the baseline would be 3. However, the `steps` items are untyped objects (additionalProperties: true), and the description supplies the entire op vocabulary with argument signatures — meaning the schema alone would leave the tool unusable. That is genuine added meaning beyond the schema, not repetition.

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 states a specific verb and resource: execute a sequence of world interactions ('按顺序执行一串世界交互'), and positions itself as a replacement for writing a script. The enumerated op list (wait/move/look/place/break...) makes the scope concrete and distinguishes it from the single-action siblings such as mc_move, mc_dig, and mc_say.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('走到这里放几个方块，再走到那里放几个') and an explicit operational guideline: split into 3-4 step batches rather than one long chain. It stops short of naming which sibling to call instead when only a single action is needed, so the exclusion boundary is implied rather than stated.

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