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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It honestly discloses the heuristic nature of the check ('appears') and the two reportable states, implying a read-only status probe. However, it doesn't disclose edge behaviors such as what happens when no session exists, whether any network/auth call is made, or error modes.

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?

A single 18-word sentence with zero filler. The action verb is front-loaded, the subject and scope are precise, and the expected binary outcome is stated. 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 tool of this simplicity — no parameters, no annotations, no output schema — the description is largely sufficient: it names what is checked and what the report will contain ('persistent or anonymous'). It could add what to do when anonymous or what the exact return shape is, but those are minor for a status probe.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the baseline. The empty schema covers 100% of parameters trivially, and per the rubric 0 params earns a baseline of 4.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Check whether the current LoreMotion browser session appears signed in') and specifies the exact output ('persistent or anonymous'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like loremotion_generate_video and loremotion_download_video, which are about content operations, not session state.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intended context is inferable — verifying session state before auth-requiring operations — and the sibling tools have no overlap, so exclusions aren't strictly needed, but the description never states when an agent should reach for this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool downloads and returns a local file path, but it omits important behavioral details like whether authentication is required, how the file is saved or overwritten, and whether any persistent side effects occur. Given the sibling tool loremotion_auth_status, auth status seems relevant but is not mentioned.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core action and key information. Every phrase adds value, with no repetition, filler, or buried detail.

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 tool with three parameters, zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain which parameter combination is valid, what filename means, what auth requirements exist, or what error conditions might arise. Agents would need to guess or probe to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It does add useful meaning by explaining that videoUrl and shareUrl are alternative sources, but it leaves filename undefined and does not clarify whether one of the URL parameters is required, which one takes precedence, or how filename is used.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Download'), the resource ('generated MP4'), the input forms ('video URL or LoreMotion share URL'), and the output ('local file path'). This distinguishes it from siblings like loremotion_generate_video, which creates the video rather than downloading it.

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 the tool should be used after a video has been generated and when a videoUrl or shareUrl is available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites such as prior generation or authentication, or compare it to alternative sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add real behavioral context: it discloses two session modes (persistent signed-in vs anonymous ephemeral) and explicitly states that ads and site limits are not bypassed. This helps an agent anticipate auth and compliance behavior, though it still omits response shape, wait semantics, and failure modes.

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 sentences with no filler, tautology, or repetition. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant session and ad-related constraints without bloating the text.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits central operational details: what the call returns, what wait=false means, how timeoutMs interacts with generation, and what a successful response looks like. The session/ads context is useful but does not make the description complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 14% (only imagePath has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. For 7 parameters including model, aspectRatio, durationSeconds, and timeoutMs, the agent must infer semantics from names and enums alone; the description does nothing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action and resource: 'Generate a LoreMotion video through the website.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_history, download_video, probe_ui, auth_status) because it is the creation operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose itself implies when to use the tool, and the session/ads notes add context about how it may be used. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives, does not state prerequisites for each session mode, and gives no negative usage guidance, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds that history is 'signed-in' and 'normally retained for 48 hours on the free account,' but it does not mention authentication requirements, output behavior, or error conditions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action immediately and includes one valuable retention detail. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, so the description is close to adequate. However, it lacks parameter guidance, output expectations, and explicit auth context beyond the word 'signed-in,' leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The schema constraints (default, maximum, minimum) provide some meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent signed-in LoreMotion history/dashboard items'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like download_video or generate_video, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as loremotion_auth_status or loremotion_generate_video. The description states what the tool does but offers no context for selection or exclusions.

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

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

Describes the primary action as inspection and discloses the screenshot side effect, which is important since no annotations exist. However, it doesn't specify where the screenshot is saved, whether any state is modified, or whether authentication is required.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediate purpose, with no redundant detail. Every clause 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?

Low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the intent and triggering condition, but omits what pathname does and what the screenshot/output looks like, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 0% and the description never mentions the pathname parameter or its default. With only one optional parameter, this is a clear gap; the agent must infer meaning from the schema alone.

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?

States a clear verb ('Inspect') and resource ('LoreMotion UI labels/fields') plus the side effect of saving a screenshot. This differentiates it from siblings like generate_video, download_video, list_history, and auth_status, which perform entirely different actions.

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?

Explicitly states when it is useful: when the website changes and selectors need adjustment. It does not offer exclusions or name alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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