pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the sequential execution and the $prev mechanism, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention error handling, potential side effects of invoking other tools, or whether the pipeline can be aborted. This is moderate transparency but leaves important gaps.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a necessary detail about $prev without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 meta-tool that runs other tools), the description explains the essential mechanics but omits important context such as error handling, behavior on step failure, and what the final output actually is (though an output schema exists). It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for robust usage.

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 schema provides no description for the 'steps' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the expected structure of each step as '{ tool, params }' and by describing the $prev data flow. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be even more explicit about the 'params' object.

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 tool's function: 'Run a sequence of tool invocations.' It specifies the verb (run), the resource (a sequence of tool invocations), and the structure of each step. It distinguishes from siblings like 'batch' by focusing on sequential execution and data passing, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. The description implies this tool should be used when you need to chain tool invocations and pass output between steps ($prev). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as 'batch' or direct calls.

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