motion_schedules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states all schedules are returned, there is no filtering, the data is limited to recurring working-hour templates, and calendar events/meetings are not exposed. This prevents the agent from misusing the result as free/busy data.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the no-filtering constraint and the important usage limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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 list-all tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return contents, scope, limitations, and how to get the missing free/busy picture. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 documents the single operation parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds the useful fact that the API supports no filtering, but it does not elaborate on the operation parameter beyond what the enum already conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get all schedules' — and defines the payload as each day's working hours and time zones. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_statuses because it names schedules as recurring working-hour templates.

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?

It explicitly notes there are no filtering options and that the result cannot show true free/busy availability, instructing the agent to combine with tasks' scheduledStart/scheduledEnd. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name a sibling tool as the alternative.

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