list_motion_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral caveat about 'version-specific limits' in native exported behavior, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what those limits are or how they manifest.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a relevant caveat. Every word 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, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the vague 'version-specific limits' caveat, which could be more explicit about what the agent should expect. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds meaning by specifying the resource type ('local linear motion recipes') and the scope ('local'), which helps the agent understand what the tool operates on. With 0 params, 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('local linear motion recipes'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like apply_motion_preset, but the verb 'list' versus 'apply' provides implicit distinction.

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 context by specifying 'local linear motion recipes' and noting 'native exported behavior has version-specific limits,' which hints at when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_motion_preset or list_native_resources.

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