motion-tools

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: returns status, progress, and download URL upon completion. It also implies polling behavior. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes or polling intervals.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs all essential information without redundancy.

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 polling tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the what, the return values, and the relationship to the render tool. It lacks error-handling details, but these are not critical for a basic status check.

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 compensates by stating that the renderId refers to a render started with render_motion_tool, giving the parameter meaningful context. It stops short of specifying format or additional constraints, but for a single simple parameter it adds sufficient value.

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 the specific verb 'Poll' and identifies the resource as 'a render started with render_motion_tool', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_motion_tool and render_motion_tool. It also specifies the return values, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly states when to use it: after starting a render with render_motion_tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the phrasing 'Poll a render' make the usage context clear.

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?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by detailing what the schema includes: customizable fields with max lengths/examples, design-system variants, color schemes, output size, and an example render call. Since readOnlyHint already indicates a safe read operation, the description enriches the return content without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and then lists the contents in an easy-to-parse colon-separated list. Every word adds value; there is 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it enumerates the key content of the returned schema. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity. The parameter schema covers the source of the slug, filling a potential gap.

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 schema provides full coverage for the lone parameter slug with a clear description and example. The description does not add further parameter syntax but reinforces that the parameter identifies a single tool. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states "Get one Mographr tool's full schema" which specifies the action (get) and the resource (one tool's schema). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on schema retrieval rather than listing tools or rendering, and enumerates specific contents (fields, variants, colors, output size, example call).

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 usage when you need detailed schema information for a specific tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_motion_tools or render_motion_tool. The schema parameter mentions that the slug comes from list_motion_tools, but this is in the schema, not the description. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context about the listed tools (e.g., watermark and interactive editor), but it does not disclose behaviors of the list operation itself, such as pagination, sorting, or response format.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('List...') and follows with a list of tool types, while the second adds valuable detail about customization, watermark, and editor. Every sentence 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-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives a strong sense of what the returned catalog contains: template types, customization options, watermark policy, and editor availability. It lacks explicit return-format details but is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly focuses on the catalog contents, and there are no parameter semantics to explain, so the baseline 4 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?

The description opens with 'List Mographr's free motion-graphics tools', a specific verb + resource that clearly identifies the operation. It then elaborates on tool types and features, distinguishing this catalog-listing tool from siblings like get_motion_tool or render_motion_tool.

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 provides rich context that the tool is an overview of available free tools, including their features, watermark, and editor. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_motion_tool or render_motion_tool, nor mention any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that free renders contain a watermark, take ~1–3 minutes on the CPU render lane, and return a renderId plus interactive page URL. These behavioral details help the agent set expectations, even though annotations already indicate non-readonly and idempotent 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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose, then explain required and optional inputs, and finally disclose output and timing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned, how to poll for the result, and the expected runtime. It also ties into sibling tools (get_motion_tool and get_motion_render) to form a complete workflow.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters, and the description adds useful semantics by explaining that variantId comes from get_motion_tool and defaults to the tool's default variant, and that fields hold text values keyed by field key. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though some details are redundant.

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 'Render a customized MP4 with a Mographr free tool', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the action and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_motion_tool, get_motion_render, list_motion_tools) by focusing on the rendering action rather than listing or retrieving.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to render a customized MP4 after obtaining a slug and optional ids from get_motion_tool, and it directs polling to get_motion_render. It provides solid contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or contrast with all sibling tools.

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