Search components by measured motion metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool filters on measured motion metadata rather than prose, and it clarifies the semantic difference between category (appearance) and trigger/cluster (movement). However, it does not disclose how multiple filters combine (AND/OR), whether results are ranked, or what output format to expect. This is a moderate level of transparency for a search tool.

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, immediately front-loaded with the core behavior. The first sentence is a crisp definition; the second adds crucial usage context without redundancy. Every part earns its place, and it is not bloated.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context about filter combination logic, output shape, and what 'CAPA-1 motion block' means. The description gives good high-level guidance but leaves practical operational details unaddressed. It is not fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without further assumptions.

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 only 14% (libs), so the description must compensate. It names several key parameters (trigger, libs, complexity, motion_system, category) and clarifies the meaning of trigger versus category. However, it introduces 'cluster' as a concept not present in the schema, potentially confusing agents. It does not detail limit, max_complexity, or motion_system semantics, though field names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb ('Filters') and resource ('components') with a clear scope: 'by the CAPA-1 motion block (trigger, libs, complexity, motion system) rather than by prose.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_components by explaining the look-vs-move distinction. The title reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly provides guidance: 'Prefer this over search_components when composing a page' and gives a concrete example of why the two tools disagree ('slider label alone splits across 3 opposite physics'). This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool instead of the alternative.

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