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

The description discloses the specific data payload (versions, images, canonical URL, revision, decisions), which adds value beyond the annotations that already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context about the return content.

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 a single, focused sentence that lists the key return elements without fluff. It is efficiently structured and front-loads the core purpose, with no unnecessary repetition or digressions.

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 description lists the data types returned, providing a basic understanding, but does not specify the response structure, error conditions, or any dependencies. Given the lack of an output schema, a more detailed description of the return format would be beneficial, though it remains adequate for a simple get 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the motifId parameter. It only indirectly references 'one motif', leaving the parameter's format, meaning, and constraints undefined. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone, which is minimal compensation.

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 action (get) and the resource (one motif), enumerating specific data returned: public versions, images, canonical URL, revision, and required decisions. This distinguishes it from sibling search_motifs, which implies searching rather than retrieving details for a specific motif.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_knowledge or search_motifs. The description only states what it does without indicating preferred contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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