sequence_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool activates an acquisition or safety workflow and that the sequence may not be immediately confirmed as running, since the agent is told to call sequence_get_state afterward. It stops short of describing error behavior or idempotency, but for a zero-parameter command tool this is meaningful disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and its effect are front-loaded, and the follow-up verification instruction is a single useful addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter lifecycle tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states the action, the resource, the effect, and the immediate next step. The 'currently loaded sequence' phrasing implies the load prerequisite, and no additional context is needed 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Starts or resumes') and a clear resource ('currently loaded sequence'), and says what it activates ('acquisition or safety workflow'). It also names the sibling sequence_get_state, which helps differentiate this tool from state-checking and lifecycle tools like sequence_stop and sequence_load_plan.

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 clear procedural context: use this to start/resume a loaded sequence, then verify with sequence_get_state. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer a sibling, but the loaded-sequence qualifier implies a prerequisite and the named follow-up tool gives enough orientation.

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