get_motion

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that source-only references return a link and no prompt, which is not covered by annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The main retrieval behavior is front-loaded, followed by the important source-only caveat.

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?

The description covers returned fields and the source-only edge case, which helps given there is no output schema. However, it leaves the id parameter semantics unexplained and does not route the agent among sibling tools, leaving clear gaps for a get-by-id operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required id parameter, so the description should compensate but does not. It never explains what the id identifies, its format, or how it relates to the recipe prompt being read.

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 read operation and enumerates the returned content: recipe prompt, dependencies, customization parameters, verification, source, and license. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_motion or prepare_motion.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about source-only references describes return behavior, not usage conditions or exclusions, and the sibling tools are not mentioned.

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