sequence_load_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it states side-effect limitations ('loads nothing' when complete), mode-dependent behavior, and the effect of quality thresholds. It doesn't fully describe every edge case or the behavior of max_guiding_rms_arcsec, but it is substantially transparent for an unannotated 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?

The description is six sentences of dense, non-redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and guardrails, then explains modes and quality filters, and ends with the essential follow-up instruction. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, modes, frame types, quality filters, and the load-versus-start distinction, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It misses explicit meaning for `max_guiding_rms_arcsec` and does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but overall it is largely complete for a 6-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `mode` (remaining/full), enumerates all `frame_type` choices, and clarifies `max_hfr` and `min_detected_stars` effects. However, it omits any meaning for `max_guiding_rms_arcsec`, which is a small but notable gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Loads an acquisition sequence with safety guardrails from an observation-plan JSON file.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling sequence_start by explicitly stating 'This tool only loads the sequence; call sequence_start afterward,' so an agent can separate loading from starting.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: the default `remaining` mode acquires only needed frames, `mode="full"` reacquires the entire plan, and quality thresholds affect light-frame counting. It also provides a clear boundary and follow-up instruction: 'This tool only loads the sequence; call sequence_start afterward,' which routes the agent to the correct next step.

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