motion_inspect_pose_search_asset

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating operation, and the Returns section discloses the shape of the result, but the description does not mention path validation, failure behavior, or potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but not deeply transparent.

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 compact, well-organized docstring: purpose first, then Args, Returns, KB reference, and Example. Every section earns its place, and the example clearly demonstrates the exact invocation shape without unnecessary elaboration.

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 one-parameter inspect tool with an output schema, the description provides the parameter meaning, return type, knowledge-base pointer, and a full example call. It is missing explicit guidance on valid asset path formats or how this relates to pose-search creation tools, but the core invocation information is complete.

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 0%, so the single 'asset' parameter is only typed and titled in the schema. The description compensates by defining it as a 'Pose Search schema or database asset path' and gives a concrete Unreal path example, giving an agent the semantic meaning needed to call the tool correctly.

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 opening sentence uses the specific verb 'Inspect' with a concrete resource: 'Pose Search schema or database asset.' The Returns line further clarifies the output as 'schema channels or database animation assets,' which distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like motion_create_pose_search_schema and motion_add_database_sequence.

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 that this tool is for reading Pose Search assets and provides a representative example, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of related pose-search creation or modification tools. The contrast with siblings is inferable but never stated.

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