motion studio sessions

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

The annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description's word 'inspect' aligns well. No additional side effects or authentication details are provided, but the annotations cover the primary safety aspects.

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 clear, concise sentences convey the purpose and a critical usage hint without any filler 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?

For a simple read-only inspection tool with no parameters, the description is sufficient. It states what it does and gives a practical prerequisite. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., a list of sessions) but this is a minor gap.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It effectively adds no additional parameter-related information, aligning with the baseline score.

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 inspects 'connected Studio places and selected model IDs', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'motion_studio_inspect' tool, which may serve a similar purpose.

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?

It provides a usage hint ('Select a rig in Studio before dispatching commands'), but this is more of a prerequisite than a comparison. It does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus other studio-related tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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