motion_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get... statuses,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm this, mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description provides the basic action and target but lacks information about return format, read-only nature, or when to use it. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 one optional parameter (workspaceId) with a description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema. The schema fully documents the parameter, so the description does not need to compensate, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: 'Get available task/project statuses for a workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource (statuses) and scope (workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks, motion_projects, and motion_workspaces, which focus on other entities.

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 when you need statuses for tasks/projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools. Since the purpose is clear and sibling tools are distinct, the usage context is implied but not explicitly articulated.

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