get_motion

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the retargeting behavior and the primary-vs-batch distinction, but it does not explain what shape 'status/downloads' take or whether 'apply' changes anything persistently. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact at three sentences and front-loads the main retrieval purpose before the retargeting variant and the sibling pointer. The first sentence is slightly overloaded by joining retrieval and retargeting with 'or,' but there is no redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return semantics; 'primary motion status/downloads' gives only a partial picture. The sibling reference to list_batch_motions and the parameter schema fill in some gaps, but an agent is left unsure exactly what fields or file payload to expect from get_motion.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents motionID, fps, bodyIndex, characterID, and downloadType with examples and enums. The description adds useful context about multi-person Comic retargeting and zero-based indexing but mostly restates schema information.

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 'Retrieve primary motion status/downloads', identifying a specific verb and resource, and also mentions the retargeting capability via characterID/bodyIndex. It distinguishes itself from list_batch_motions by pointing out that the sibling returns 'complete ordered...output arrays,' but the qualifier 'primary' is vague enough to keep it from full clarity.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: for multi-person Comic retargeting, provide characterID and zero-based bodyIndex. It also tells the agent to use list_batch_motions when complete output arrays are needed, which is a clear when-not/alternative. However, it does not contrast with other motion-related siblings such as search_motions, list_motions, or get_batch.

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