list_motions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it lists specific fields and optionally filters. However, it omits behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or whether it returns all motions or only those the user can see. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the return fields and filtering capability. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, so the description could be minimal. However, it doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., 'all motions in the workspace', 'motions for a meeting only'). This vagueness reduces completeness given the sibling tools context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that meetingId filters motions by meeting, which is functional but minimal. It doesn't specify what the integer represents (e.g., meeting ID from list_meetings) or that it's optional. The added value is marginal.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'motions', and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, kind, ballot_mode, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_meetings (different resource) and get_meeting (single meeting), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 hints at when to use the optional meetingId filter ('Optionally filter by meeting') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_motion_results or search_documents. It lacks exclusions or prerequisite context.

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