run_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important side effect that the target is reset and that output has two layers (raw observations plus symbols). It does not say whether the reset is destructive to prior state, what happens on invalid inputs, or what 'symbols' actually contain, leaving real gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then optional-parameter modifiers. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs two modifiers together without separating them visually.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which this description respects. However, for a tool that resets state and takes an undocumented required string array, the definition is missing the workflow context (target prerequisite, input format) needed to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains symbols_only and keys well, including a concrete example of key names, but the required 'inputs' parameter is never explained — an agent cannot tell whether these are action strings, selectors, or commands.

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 gives specific verbs and a resource flow: reset the target, apply inputs, return raw observations and symbols. An agent knows it executes a sequence of inputs against an already-open target. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling tools feed it or overlap with it (e.g., discover_ui, probe_web_field).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings like discover_ui, suggest_probes, or probe_web_field. No prerequisites are given either, even though 'reset the target' implies a target must first be opened (open_target) and inputs must come from somewhere.

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