analyze_motion_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it clarifies the output is advisory diagnostics, that no automatic repair occurs, and that the original motion is left unchanged — a behavioral guarantee an agent needs before calling.

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?

Two tight sentences: the metric list comes first, the scope disclaimer second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant qualifier ("not a realism score") is placed where it will be read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a tool taking a thresholds object with nine physical-unit knobs and a job reference, the description is thin on how those inputs affect results, leaving an incomplete picture for a moderately complex call.

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% and the description says nothing about job_id, name, or the nested thresholds object. The thresholds block is the semantically richest part of the call (nine tunable sensitivities with non-obvious defaults) and the description never explains that these are reviewer-set sensitivities rather than pass/fail limits.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ("Measure") and enumerates the exact metrics produced: speed, jerk, bone drift, contact sliding, floor proxies, endpoint seams. It also frames the output as diagnostics rather than a score, which separates it from validate_motion in spirit, but it never names that sibling directly.

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?

"These are review diagnostics, not a realism score or automatic repair" implies a review/inspection context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement despite siblings like validate_motion, inspect_motion, and compare_motions that an agent must choose between.

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