motion studio job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the meaning of the 'unknown' state (lost acknowledgement) and the recommendation to inspect the scene before retrying. This enriches the agent's understanding of edge cases without contradicting the 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?

The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a brief clarification. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds the one nuance worth knowing. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is ideal for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one simple parameter, no nested objects, and a provided output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It enumerates all possible outcomes and explains the only ambiguous one. It does not discuss pagination or return structure, but the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable. Could mention that it is for polling, but that is implied.

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%, meaning the schema provides no description for jobId. The description does not explicitly explain that jobId refers to the job being checked, though it is strongly implied by the tool's purpose and the parameter name. For a single, simple UUID parameter, this minimal extra meaning is borderline adequate; the description could have explicitly stated 'the jobId of the job to check' to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool's action ('Get') and resource ('Studio job outcome'), enumerating the exact possible outcomes (queued, running, succeeded, failed, expired, unknown). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_studio_inspect or motion_studio_sessions, making its purpose unambiguous even without naming them explicitly.

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 checking job status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does provide a conditional behavior ('Unknown means acknowledgement was lost; inspect the scene before retrying') which hints at a follow-up action, but no direct comparison to sibling tools or exclusions are given. This is adequate but leaves room for inference.

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