motion_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the supported operations but does not clarify whether they are read-only, whether special permissions are required, or what the return payload looks like. It also omits potential side effects or limits, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 front-loads the resource and operations. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context about workspace scope, return payload structure, or usage scenarios beyond the schema's operation enum. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description leaves a few gaps that could hinder an agent's full understanding.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (operation enum and workspaceId with a note about required for get), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (Motion workspaces) and the supported operations (list and get), making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, the verb 'manage' is generic, and it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools beyond the resource name, so it lacks the specificity of a top-tier description.

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 when to use the tool by listing the operations (list and get), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the operation enum.

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