press_sequence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Real actions — approve per call,' indicating each press is executed and requires approval. However, it does not disclose rate limits, maximum sequence length, or error behavior. Adequate but could be more detailed.

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?

Description is relatively short, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but overall efficient and clear.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers parameter semantics well and mentions screenshot capture. However, it does not specify return format (e.g., whether screenshot is returned). Minor gap for completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. It explains the 'buttons' parameter format (space-separated btn[:kind] with examples) and 'then_screenshot' default behavior (capture final screen). Adds meaningful context beyond property names.

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?

Description clearly states the tool injects a sequence of buttons in one BLE connection for efficient multi-step navigation. The verb 'inject' and resource 'sequence of buttons' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'press' (single press) and 'screenshot' (separate capture) by combining both.

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?

Description explains efficiency ('one connect instead of one per press') and provides example usage ('down down ok'). It implies when to use (multi-step navigation with optional screenshot), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Sibling comparison is clear.

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