sequence_enter_safety_standby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that this tool only loads a sequence, does not start it, keeps safety guardrails active, and must be stopped before loading other sequences. It does not mention side effects of neglecting the stop step, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, what to do next, and when to stop/avoid it. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important context is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters)Skip? Given zero parameters, an output schema, and clear sibling context, the description covers the complete call workflow: load, start, stop before replacing, and the operational condition for using it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already exhaustively documents the inputs. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4; the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail and needs none.

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 names a specific verb ('Loads'), a specific resource ('non-acquisition standby sequence'), and the purpose ('keeps NINA sequence-level safety and stow guardrails active while the observatory is idle'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that load or execute acquisition or teardown sequences.

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 explicit operational guidance: call sequence_start after loading, stop it before loading an acquisition or teardown sequence, and use it whenever equipment is deployed with no other sequence running. This fully orients an agent on when and how to invoke the tool.

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