get_motion_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and listing progress, timing, and terminal error details gives a useful preview of behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the optional command_id or idempotency_key affect what is returned or whether results are scoped, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It opens with the action, names the resource, and enumerates the key data categories in a compact list. Every word contributes.

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 does not explain parameter semantics or usage boundaries with sibling tools. Although an output schema exists and may document return values, the input parameters and selection criteria are under-described for a tool with three parameters and zero schema description coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the three parameters. job_id is implied by the word 'job,' but command_id and idempotency_key are entirely opaque—an agent cannot tell what they control or wither they are required for specific use cases.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'motion job state,' listing the kinds of information exposed: progress, timing, and terminal error details. This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic status tools like get_job_status and get_runtime_status, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_job_status, get_runtime_status, or cancel_motion. An agent must infer that 'motion job' implies a narrower scope than general job or runtime status.

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