vnc_execute_sequence

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the batching and speed purpose, and the list of action types, but does not say whether actions execute in order, how errors are handled, or whether a failed action aborts the sequence. It also omits the 'double_click' action type from the schema's enum, leaving a minor inconsistency.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists supported action types. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool has moderate complexity (array of action objects, six action types in schema, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives a high-level purpose but omits critical context such as execution order, error behavior, and the meaning of each parameter. It is adequate for a quick reference but not fully complete for a tool that accepts nested heterogeneous objects.

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 lists the action types but does not map them to the required parameters (e.g., that move/click need x,y; key needs key; type needs text; wait needs ms). The field names in the schema are terse and lack usage context, so the description provides insufficient guidance beyond the action type list.

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 the verb 'Execute' and a clear resource: 'a sequence of input actions,' then lists the types (move, click, type, key, wait). The phrase 'in a single call' differentiates it from sibling tools like vnc_mouse_move and vnc_key_tap, which operate individually.

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 'single call for higher speed' explicitly frames when to use it—when multiple input actions need to be batched—which distinguishes it from the single-action siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for conditional logic or error handling per step), but the batching context is clear.

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