motion_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not describe response format, pagination, or the behavior when workspaceId is omitted (though the schema does mention the latter). No contradictions exist.

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 concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource. It contains no extraneous information, and every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description combined with the schema provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, but the read-only purpose and default behavior are covered elsewhere.

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%, with workspaceId fully described including its optional default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action (Get), the resource (task/project statuses), and the context (for a workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on statuses, a unique resource not covered by other tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects.

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 implies usage when statuses are needed for a workspace, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions. The context is clear enough, but there are no stated alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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