MotionSpec catalog & authoring rules

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

Annotations already mark the tool readonly and non-open-world, so the core safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the tool returns and its intended position as the first step in an authoring workflow. It does not hide any mutation or side-effect risk, and no destructiveness is implied.

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. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and contents, and the second sentence efficiently provides the required workflow context and points to sibling tools.

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 zero-parameter read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, when to call it, how to proceed afterward, and how the compile step is accessed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description compensates by explaining what the returned catalog includes and how to use it, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the catalog of verified motion primitives...' and also explicitly includes 'authoring rules for writing a MotionSpec.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling validation, compilation, audit, and stats tools by describing exactly what this catalog tool produces.

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 gives direct workflow guidance: 'Call this FIRST, then write the spec yourself and validate it with motion_validate.' It also explains when motion_compile is appropriate ('runs in the CLI or with a key on the hosted endpoint'), which helps the agent choose the right tool in the sequence.

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