motion_schedules

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

The description discloses that the tool returns all schedules without filtering, indicating a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on potential pagination, rate limits, or response size, which could affect agent decision-making.

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 sentences, no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the core function and key fields, making it immediately useful for agent selection.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its limitation (no filtering). It could be improved by noting if pagination is supported, but the completeness is above average.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter (operation, enum ['list']). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Operation to perform' description, but the parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's singular operation.

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 it retrieves all schedules with specific fields (weekly working hours, time zones). It distinguishes from sibling tools like motion_comments or motion_projects by focusing on schedules.

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 explicitly notes 'no filtering options,' guiding agents that this tool returns all schedules unconditionally. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the sibling list provides context for when to use other tools.

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