ae_list_motion_templates

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only behavior, but the description never explicitly states that it has no side effects, what template scope is returned (project vs. installed library), or ordering/pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action and object, has no filler, and earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 simple one-parameter list, the definition is nearly adequate, but it omits how aspect_ratio affects the returned templates and gives no return-shape or behavioral details despite lacking an output schema. These gaps force an agent to guess about filtering behavior and result content.

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 single optional parameter, aspect_ratio, is left completely unexplained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the tool description does not compensate. The property name and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but it is unclear whether aspect_ratio filters results or simply hints at the desired output orientation.

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 specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('reusable motion-graphics templates'), and the planning context ('planning a YouTube video'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_list_effects, which concern effects rather than templates.

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 phrase 'when planning a YouTube video' gives clear, actionable use context for when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to decide when listing templates is relevant.

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