motion_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the API returns all schedules without filtering, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination, leaving modest gaps for a simple get-all tool.

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 short sentences effectively convey the purpose and a key limitation without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential return content and unfiltered behavior. It lacks explicit details on response structure or authentication, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'operation' parameter, which already has an enum and description. The tool description does not add extra parameter context, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'schedules' and specifies the key data returned ('weekly working hours and time zones'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects.

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 use for retrieving schedule data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The note about 'no filtering options' gives some contextual limitation but lacks direct usage guidance.

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