get_motion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('Read'), enumerates the returned data structure, and adds a behavioral nuance: comment short ids are usable as parent_id in the comment tool. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error cases, but for a read tool this is reasonable.

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: the first is information-dense but front-loaded with the core action; the second adds a usage trigger and a helpful cross-tool detail. No redundant phrasing exists.

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 purpose, usage context, and return content, and even includes a pointer to the comment tool's parent_id. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), this is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement about non-mutating behavior, but 'Read' already implies it.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond indicating lookup by short id or URL, which is already implied by motion_short_id's schema. Therefore the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and explicitly lists the resource ('a Monnet motion's full details') and the key content fields (summary, body, status, priority, plan steps, member roles, threaded comments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_motions, which would list motions rather than fetch one motion's full details.

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 provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Call this when the user references a specific motion by its short id or URL.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over list_motions or other tools.

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