motion_search

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 only says 'search' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether it returns matching tasks/projects, how results are ordered, pagination, or the role of the 'operation' parameter. The description is too thin to provide meaningful transparency.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately short, though the lack of additional context makes it under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It earns a 4 for being concise, but not a 5 because it could be restructured to include key usage hints.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not mention the ability to scope searches via searchScope, filter by workspace, or the meaning of 'operation'. The description should provide at least a hint about these parameters and the tool's overall behavior to be complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the bar is lower. However, the tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; 'by query' aligns with the 'query' parameter but does not clarify the 'operation' enum or 'searchScope' options. The schema itself already documents all parameters, so a baseline 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 states the action (search) and the resources (tasks and projects), using a specific verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects, which could also be used to retrieve tasks/projects, but 'search' implies a distinct query-based access method.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for searching across both tasks and projects, nor does it indicate when a user should choose this over motion_tasks or motion_projects. No contexts, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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