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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that systems are derived from measured inventory, not invented, and specifies the exact count (8). Unlike a mutation tool, no side effects are relevant, but it could add detail about return structure or pagination; however, for a simple list, this is adequate.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data origin; the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place, maintaining brevity while delivering essential 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 list tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it states what is listed, the provenance of the data, and the precise workflow for use. No output format is necessary since the inventory is known (8 items). The tool is simple, and this description covers all needed context.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the purpose and how to use the output, even though there are no parameters to document. It adds value by framing the list as a selection step for page composition.

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 explicitly states the tool lists the 8 motion systems of the library, identifying the resource (motion systems) and the action (list). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_motion_system' by emphasizing that this is the complete set and should be used first. The mention of token sets and measured inventory adds specificity.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this FIRST when composing a page' and instructs to pick one system to render components coherently. This implies alternatives like get_motion_system for deeper details and indicates the tool's role in the workflow.

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