motion_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait—'The Motion API returns all schedules with no filtering options'—and implies a read-only GET operation. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape, or any potential limitations beyond filtering.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and expected content; the second clarifies the lack of filtering. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will get (all schedules, weekly working hours, time zones) and the absence of filtering. It could add explicit return format details, but the tool's simplicity keeps the description sufficient.

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 100% for the single 'operation' parameter, which is an enum with 'list'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail; the phrase 'no filtering options' reinforces the enum but does not go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all schedules and specifies the kind of data they show (weekly working hours, time zones). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a unique resource type.

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 establishes when to use this tool: when you need schedules, and especially since it explicitly notes 'no filtering options,' it implies this is the go-to for all schedules rather than a filtered subset. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tool names make the resource distinction clear.

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