check_motion

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

The description frames the tool purely as inspection ('Check', 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence'), implying a read operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. With no mention of mutation, side effects, prerequisites, or what may be altered in the model, the framing actively misleads about the tool's risk profile.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding and the engine claim front-loaded, so it is structurally clean. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the units sentence consumes space that the undefined purpose and parameters needed.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with a complex nested input schema and no output schema, the description omits what is modified, what 'error evidence' is returned, and how results are shaped. It also promises an 'inspect' result without any return-value guidance, leaving the agent unable to predict outcomes.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains dimension_name, the nested 'values' array, or what the 'distances' string-pairs mean. The unit note (mm, degrees, kg) is the only added meaning and it is generic rather than per-parameter.

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 verb 'check' plus resource 'motion' is stated, but 'motion' is never defined (motion study? kinematic travel? interference over a dimension sweep?), and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like check_interference, measure_distance, or get_mass_properties. The tie-in to dimension_name/values is left entirely implicit, so an agent cannot tell from the text what is actually being checked.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many check_* and measure_* siblings. The only quasi-guidance is the phrase 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine', which hints at an engine choice but never says what the alternative would be or when to prefer it.

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