motion studio inspect

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds transparency about queueing a job and needing to check the job result, which are important side effects not in annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and follow-up action are both conveyed efficiently.

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 the presence of an output schema and the clear instruction to check the job result, the description covers all necessary context. No additional information is required for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters have meaningful descriptions in the schema: rigId is a stable model ID from motion_studio_sessions, and sessionId is required only in multi-session contexts. The description does not need to add further detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Queue inspection') and resource ('specific rig') with explicit scope: parts, joints, animated names, and structural issues. Clearly distinguishes from immediate inspection tools by indicating asynchronous behavior.

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?

Provides usage direction by saying 'Check job result for the report,' guiding the user to poll the job status. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling inspect tools like motion_blender_inspect, but the async queueing is clearly implied.

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