motion library read

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the behavioral side. The description's 'Read' is consistent with these annotations; no side effects or contradictions are present.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary detail or 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?

Given that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not explain return values. The operation is a straightforward read, and the description provides enough context for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 defines assetId as a UUID but provides no description. The tool description adds meaning by saying 'by asset ID', clarifying that assetId is the identifier of the asset to read. However, it does not elaborate on how to obtain the asset ID or any additional context.

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 ('Read'), the resource ('a complete editable animation or VFX recipe'), and the scope ('by asset ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_library_list (which likely lists recipes) and motion_library_save (which writes).

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 implies usage for retrieving a specific recipe for editing, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'complete editable' wording hints at use cases, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.

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