list_motions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns short ids (not full motion data) and defaults to 'open' status, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, pagination behavior, or response shape, leaving gaps.

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 with three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, follow-up behavior, and default filter. No wasted words and important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at the return shape (short ids) but doesn't fully specify the response structure. However, the tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters, making the description largely sufficient for an AI to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions filterable by status and default status open, both already in schema. It does not clarify parameter syntax or add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool lists motions in a workspace and is filterable by status. It also distinguishes itself from get_motion by mentioning short ids for follow-up, which is a specific resource and action.

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 provides clear context that this is for listing and mentions using get_motion for a specific motion, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other listing alternatives. The implicit guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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