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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $PREV / $STEP{n} variable-capture mechanism, but for an arbitrary shell-execution tool it omits side effects, permissions, sandboxing, and how stop_on_error interacts with subsequent steps, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the variable-capture note is a compact, relevant addendum.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more: what the result contains (per-command output, captured variables, exit status) and the error semantics of stop_on_error. For a four-parameter execution tool it is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the variable-capture syntax for commands, which is slightly beyond the schema but not a rich supplement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute multiple shell commands in sequence') with the added scope of sequence execution, which inherently separates it from the single-command sibling run_command. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 phrase 'multiple shell commands in sequence' implies when this is preferable to run_command, and the mention of variable capture hints at the chaining use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so the guidance is only implied.

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