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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies the exact output format ('number slug <role> [tags] · title'), explains the meaning of ROLE and SLUG, and states the behavior when called with no arguments. It does not cover pagination or sorting, but for a list tool this is sufficient transparent detail.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently covers output format, role semantics, slug importance, filtering options, and no-arg behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 list/filter tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the output format, the meaning of roles, the various filter dimensions, and the no-argument case. No critical information is missing for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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% with inline descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the filter dimensions ('by tag, by collection slug, by free-text query, or by legacy section letter') and providing concrete examples like 'seams-handoffs'. It also adds conceptual guidance on when to filter by role versus tag, which helps parameter selection beyond 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?

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List Motion Menu patterns.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pattern by describing the output as a list of rows with roles and tags, and it emphasizes the slug as the permanent identity, implying this is the browsing/searching tool rather than a single-pattern fetcher.

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 gives explicit context on when to use certain filters: 'filter by it when you are building a page rather than hunting an effect' and 'Call with no arguments to see the whole catalogue and its tag vocabulary.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_pattern for single-pattern lookups, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is clear.

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