motion_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' with no mention of safety, permissions, return format, pagination, or rate limits. For a read operation, more context is expected, such as whether the statuses are system-defined or user-defined, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states the action and resource, and the optional workspace context is implied. 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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the primary purpose, and the schema covers the nuance of workspaceId behavior. It could mention the return type, but for a status lookup tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation.

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% because the only parameter, workspaceId, already has a clear description in the schema ('optional, returns all statuses if not specified'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task/project statuses') with a scope ('for a workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks, motion_projects, and motion_custom_fields, which cover other resources.

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 clear context: it's for fetching statuses in the context of a workspace. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would know when to invoke it. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, which prevents the highest score.

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