get_motion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it names returned fields, notes playheadPosition is 'undefined when no timeline is active', and warns that motionEnabled:false is returned when the feature flag is absent. It omits edge-case behavior for invalid/empty nodeId input, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the resource enumeration, and the two follow-on sentences (reaction distinction, feature-flag behavior) each add real routing value rather than filler. The first sentence is dense with em-dash clauses but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the sole carrier of both return shape and behavioral traits, and it covers both substantively. Only minor gaps remain, such as error handling for invalid node identifiers.

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 coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does document the optionality and fallback behavior ('current selection when none are given'), which is genuinely useful, but it never distinguishes the singular nodeId from the array nodeIds or whether one overrides the other.

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?

A specific verb (Read) plus resource (Motion state), with an explicit enumeration of what the state contains: timelines, playheadPosition, keyframe tracks, animation styles, and resolved animations. It also carves out a clear conceptual boundary versus sibling reaction tools ('reactions link frames on click, Motion animates properties over a timeline'), so an agent can separate it from get_reactions/list_animation_styles without opening schemas.

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?

States the calling condition precisely — 'for the given nodes, or the current selection when none are given' — and contrasts the concept with prototype reactions. However, it stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not routing among nearby siblings like get_animation_presets or list_animation_styles, so alternative selection is inferred rather than stated.

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