build_reduced_motion_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the output consists of alternatives plus implementation hooks, which is useful context, but it does not describe the shape, format, or limitations of those results.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler and the output concept front-loaded alongside the input. It is slightly abstract and noun-dense, which costs it the top score.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what callers get back, and 'implementation hooks' is left undefined. Annotations cover the safety profile and the parameter list is trivially small, so it is adequate but not complete for a planning tool.

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 0%, but the single parameter is a self-documenting enum of motion effect names, so much of the semantics is carried by the vocabulary itself. The description's 'declared effects' maps loosely to the effects array but adds no detail about item limits (1-8) or how each effect is interpreted.

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 verb 'map' plus the resource 'declared effects' and the output ('still/low-motion alternatives and implementation hooks') give a concrete sense of what the tool produces, distinct from check_motion_accessibility or build_motion_timeline. It stops short of naming a sibling to differentiate against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no routing to alternatives like check_motion_accessibility or build_motion_timeline. The phrase 'declared effects' implies the input comes from an earlier planning step, but the agent must infer that.

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