motivate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool returns a motivational quote matched to the task and instructs the agent to include it in the response. This is transparent about the core behavior and usage pattern, though it does not discuss edge cases or side effects—acceptable for a benign, quote-returning tool.

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 concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no 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 tool with no output schema and straightforward behavior, the description is complete. It not only explains what the tool does but also how and when to use it, making it fully actionable for an AI agent. No additional context is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of 'task' by saying 'passing a short description of what the user is doing,' which adds context beyond the schema's field description. It does not explicitly mention the 'avoid_repeats' parameter, but the schema already covers it, so the baseline is satisfied.

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 function: 'Return a motivational quote matched to the task currently being worked on.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('motivational quote'), and defines the scope ('matched to the task currently being worked on'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'explain_match' and 'list_topics', which serve different purposes.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Call this at the start of a reply, passing a short description of what the user is doing, and include the returned line in your response.' This is clear contextual guidance. It doesn't mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the instruction is specific and actionable.

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