at_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 disclose meaningful runtime behavior: failures do not abort the run, and each step yields PASS/FAIL/TIMEOUT plus an echo tail. It leaves gaps on whether the port must already be opened via serial_open, whether the port is locked exclusively during the run, and the destructive potential of sending arbitrary AT commands (e.g. AT+RST).

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 what the tool does, then a compact worked example for the non-obvious parameter shape, then the output/behavior contract. No sentence is redundant and the example earns its space by removing schema ambiguity.

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 re-explained, and the description still helps by previewing the PASS/FAIL/TIMEOUT structure. What is missing for a port-based tool is the setup precondition (must serial_open/serial_list be used first) and any exclusivity note; otherwise the definition is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

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, and it does explain the most important parameter well: the steps array shape with cmd/expect (regex)/timeout_s shown by concrete example. However, port, default_baud, and total_timeout_s receive no explanation at all, and the relationship between per-step timeout_s and the top-level total_timeout_s is unstated.

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 ('批量执行 AT 指令序列并逐条断言') plus the use case ('半自动回归测试'), which cleanly separates it from the single-shot serial_send / rs485_send siblings in the list. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear context for use ('半自动回归测试') and an operating rule ('中途失败不中断，方便一次看全'), which tells the agent this is the right choice when it wants a full pass/fail sweep rather than fail-fast behavior. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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