motion_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which suggests a read-only lookup, but it does not describe return format, pagination, defaults, auth needs, or other important operational behavior.

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 clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning high marks for conciseness even though it is minimal.

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?

Despite a rich schema, the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the one-sentence description leaves significant gaps such as return value shape, default searchScope behavior, and the inconsistency around the required query parameter. The description is minimally viable but not fully contextual.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema; it only names 'query' as the search mechanism, while the schema already documents each parameter fully.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource ('Motion tasks and projects'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_projects by covering both entities, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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: an agent should use this tool when searching tasks and projects by query. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer sibling tools or when not to use this tool, so the usage context is only partially stated.

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