list_motifs

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description adds little on the safety axis. It discloses nothing about the return payload (names, IDs, ordering, empty-list behavior) and, with no output schema present, the description carries that burden and drops it.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true terseness.

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 zero-parameter read-only lister the definition is minimally viable: the agent knows what it lists and that it is safe. What is missing is the shape of what comes back and how it relates to subsequent place_motif calls, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered enumeration rather than a query.

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 names the resource (motifs) and ties it to the save_motif/place_motif siblings, so the agent can infer it is the read-side of that lifecycle. However, it never states the verb explicitly (list/retrieve) and reads as a sentence fragment, leaving the purpose implied rather than stated.

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?

Mentioning place_motif hints at the workflow (inspect saved motifs before placing one), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against any of the many other list_* tools. An agent must infer the call site entirely.

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