StudioMotion

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is known; the description adds real context beyond that — credit consumption, purchase gating, and free re-retrieval. It doesn't disclose error behavior or what exactly is produced when the theme is locked.

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?

Three tight clauses with the core action front-loaded, then cost, then the discovery route. No filler, though the credit/purchase clause is somewhat dense and could be split for scanning.

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 12-parameter, 10-required tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It never explains the semantics of most inputs or the shape of the returned theme files, so an agent cannot confidently construct a valid call.

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% across 12 parameters (10 required), so the description must carry the burden. It names only a few fields (colors, fonts, 1–8 section IDs) and leaves the rest — theme, brand, headline, description, cta, email, mode, motion, palette — entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returning complete customized React theme files with colors, fonts, and 1–8 section IDs. It nudges the agent to list_themes for ID discovery, giving some sibling differentiation, though the boundary against get_section/list_styles is only implicit.

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?

Clear context for use: requires a purchased theme or one of five monthly Pro credits, repeat retrievals of unlocked themes are free, and theme IDs come from list_themes. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives among get_section/list_styles, but the precondition and cost guidance are solid.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description then adds the only information available about return values ('design tokens ... and style descriptions'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing the shape or format of those tokens.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource and contents of the return value with zero filler. Every clause 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-argument, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece — the categories of data returned. It could go further by sketching the response structure or noting this is a static token registry, but it is sufficient to call 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('StudioMotion design tokens') and enumerates the token categories returned (colors, fonts, easings, durations, radii), so the agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_styles or list_themes, which also appear to surface design data.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite obvious candidates among the siblings (list_styles, list_themes, compose_theme). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the token source for theme composition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Since no output schema exists, the description usefully fills that gap by describing the return semantics (tier and section unlock count).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it stops just short of adding any routing or contextual detail that would make it stand out.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value. Little else is needed for an agent 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no arguments whose meaning needs explaining.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and a precise resource (your StudioMotion account plan), and even enumerates the result (Free/Pro and unlocked section count). It is clearly distinct from the design-themed siblings, though it does not explicitly name any of them.

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 implied – an agent would call this to check account tier – but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named against the sibling set.

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

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

Annotations already cover the readOnly/idempotent/closed-world safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: the payload contains component code and a motion spec, and Pro sections are gated behind a plan. It does not say what happens when the caller lacks a Pro plan (error vs. partial), leaving a small gap.

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, zero padding, with the substantive 'what you get back' clause front-loaded ahead of the plan constraint.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content and one access restriction. The only omission is behavior on insufficient plan/unknown id, which is minor for a read operation.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance from list_sections or search_sections. The description adds only that a section is 'one' item, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (one StudioMotion section) and goes further by stating exactly what is returned: React + Framer Motion + Tailwind component code plus a motion spec. This is distinguishable from listing/searching siblings that only return metadata.

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?

States a prerequisite ('Pro sections require an active Pro plan') but never says when to reach for this tool versus list_sections or search_sections, which are the natural discovery siblings. Usage is implied by the required id rather than explained.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is low; the description still adds meaningful non-annotation context by disclosing that results are paginated and that each entry reports tier and plan unlock eligibility. No rate limits or auth notes, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 tight sentences; the core listing behavior and its scoping filters come first, with the alternative-tool pointer last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload (tier, plan unlock) and pagination, and params are mostly self-documented. Only the offset parameter's semantics are left unaddressed.

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 75% and three of four parameters (kind, style, limit) are already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that filtering by style or kind is optional and that results paginate, without new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list StudioMotion agency sections) plus the filter dimensions (style, kind) and what each result carries (tier, plan unlock status). It is clearly distinguishable from get_section (single item) and search_sections (free-text), which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes free-text lookups to search_sections, and notes the style/kind filters are optional. It does not address when to prefer get_section or how browsing relates to search, so the routing is good but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned records (id, label, description), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention ordering, volume, or pagination.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded ahead of the downstream tip. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what is enumerated and what each entry contains. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and size, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description carries no per-parameter burden and a baseline of 4 applies. Its note about reusing the returned id as a filter elsewhere is useful connective context even though it is not a parameter of this call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every StudioMotion visual style') and names the returned fields (id, label, description), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling list_themes, so it falls 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?

'Use the id as the style filter elsewhere' gives a downstream usage hint, which is helpful, but there is no when-to-use guidance and no routing against siblings like list_themes or get_design_tokens. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful catalog context such as newest-first ordering, catalog size, and pricing/credit information, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, which is good. However, the single sentence is dense with promotional details like fictional product samples, price, and monthly credits that do not directly help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 simple list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the broad catalog and ordering well enough. It is still missing guidance on how the optional filters work and what the returned list contains, which are important for correct invocation.

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, but it never mentions the `query` parameter and only indirectly hints at `category` through "ten verticals". The hint is weak and does not explain filtering semantics or expected values, leaving the parameters largely undocumented.

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, "Browse", on a clear resource, "StudioMotion's 245 original website themes", and adds scope details like newest-first ordering and retail themes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_sections or list_styles, which keeps it from 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?

The description implies browsing a theme catalog but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like search_sections, list_styles, or get_my_plan. There are no conditions or alternatives named, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: results are ranked and paginated, and the id can be fed to get_section. Default page size and paging mechanics are left to the schema.

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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and examples embedded inline. The follow-up routing is placed at the end where it belongs.

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 7-param, no-output-schema search tool this covers purpose, filters, ranking/pagination and next step. It could say more about result shape or how ranking interacts with filters, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description names five of the seven parameters (free-text query, style, kind, tier, tags) and hints at ordering and paging, adding meaning beyond the 71% schema coverage — notably that ranking is relevance-based rather than supplied explicitly. Limit/offset specifics remain with the 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (StudioMotion library) with scope — free text plus optional filters. It is clearly distinguishable from list_sections (browse) and get_section (retrieve by id), which the description explicitly references.

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?

Gives concrete query examples ('scroll parallax hero', 'magnetic button') and names the follow-up path: use get_section with a returned id for code. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_sections for browsing, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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