motion_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that only list and get operations are supported, which implies read-only capabilities, but it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or response formats. The scope is disclosed, but not deeply.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and supported operations without any wasted words. It is extremely concise and well-structured.

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 is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description is somewhat adequate. However, it does not explain what list returns (e.g., all workspaces) or what get returns, nor any error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with Motion APIs.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters, with clear descriptions for 'operation' and 'workspaceId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 manages Motion workspaces and supports list and get operations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects. However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic, and the exact behavior of list/get is not fully elaborated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource name 'workspaces' and the operations listed, which does not sufficiently help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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