execute_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: guard conditions can gate steps, failed guards halt the sequence, and evidence is returned. It also emphasizes the 'pre-decided' nature and non-planner role. However, it does not explain behavior around stop_on_failure for ordinary step failures, nor what 'evidence' includes.

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 two sentences that are dense with meaning. It front-loads the core function, then adds important usage context. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (nested steps, multiple options, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the main purpose and guard behavior but omits crucial details about parameter structure, failure handling for regular step failures, and the nature of returned evidence. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 only clarifies the guard parameter and implicitly the steps limit, but does not explain the structure of each step (tool, args), nor the purpose of stop_on_failure or screenshot_after. This leaves significant gaps for a complex nested schema.

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 clearly states the tool runs up to 20 pre-decided acting steps in one call, naming the action (run), resource (acting steps), and scope (up to 20). It distinguishes itself from sibling low-level tools by framing itself as a macro, not a planner.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use only when you already know every step; this is a macro, not a planner.' This gives a clear condition for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., individual action tools). The reference to `wait` for guard schema adds context.

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