acs_set_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely restates the tool name ('set script execution sequence') without mentioning whether the new sequence overwrites an existing one, whether it takes effect immediately, or any side effects. This is effectively a tautology.

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 a single short sentence that directly conveys the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context such as whether the sequence replaces existing scripts, whether order matters (already implied but not explicitly stated), or what happens after setting. Given the lack of annotations, this is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the sole 'scripts' parameter, including a concrete example (e.g., ["GetParameterValue.txt", "Reboot.lua"]). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '设置脚本执行序列' (set script execution sequence) identifies a specific verb ('set') and resource ('script execution sequence'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like acs_run_script or acs_get_sequence. However, it does not explicitly explain what 'sequence' entails (e.g., ordered execution), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that acs_run_script executes a single script, acs_get_sequence retrieves the current sequence, or whether this tool should be used before starting a session. Usage context is entirely absent.

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