play_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 add real behavioral facts: it repeats the saved move/hold times, aborts early on a fault, and is capped at 120 s. It omits whether the call blocks for up to that 120 s and whether stop_all can interrupt it.

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 compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints second. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: loop count semantics, fault behavior, and a hard time cap. Missing only call-blocking/return behavior and failure modes such as no sequence being saved.

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% and the single `loops` parameter has only a default of 1, so the description does the work by explaining it means the sequence is repeated that many times. That fully covers the one parameter; a 5 would need edge cases like loops=0 or a maximum.

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?

Specific verb ('play') plus resource ('the GUI's saved sequence of poses'), which clearly distinguishes it from single-pose tools like go_to_pose and script tools like run_script. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource: play a previously saved sequence. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over run_script, go_to_pose, or list_poses, and no prerequisites such as needing a sequence already saved or the port being open.

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