ae_audit_motion_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'check' implies a read-only inspection, and the criteria define what is evaluated. However, it does not disclose side effects, return shape, failure behavior, or whether the audit modifies the blueprint in any way.

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, dense sentence communicates the tool's exact purpose without filler. Every clause contributes meaningful audit criteria, making this both concise and attention-effective.

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 fully explains what is being checked, which is the core need for invoking this tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the caller receives back, such as a boolean, a list of findings, or an audit report. It also lacks workflow placement guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 and only a generic object parameter named 'blueprint'. The description clarifies that the parameter is a motion blueprint, which adds some domain meaning. Still, it does not explain the expected structure, required fields, or relationship to blueprints produced by sibling tools.

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 names a specific verb ('Check whether'), a specific resource ('a motion blueprint'), and precise evaluation criteria (object choreography, impact beats, scene variation, readable settle moments). This clearly separates it from siblings like ae_validate_motion_blueprint or ae_repair_motion_blueprint.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as ae_validate_motion_blueprint, ae_repair_motion_blueprint, and ae_create_motion_blueprint suggest related workflows, but the description does not state when auditing coverage is appropriate or when another tool should be used instead.

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