get_motion_sends

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: sends are delivered once only, an immediate return happens if something is already queued, and the timeout wait applies only when nothing has arrived. This is consistent with (and explains) destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so there is no contradiction. However, it doesn't say what an empty result looks like or how to distinguish "nothing sent yet" from "timed out", which matters for a consuming read.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the payload shape, then the act-on-it rule, then the timing option. No restatement of the name and no filler.

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?

With a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by naming every field of a send. Combined with the one-time delivery and timeout semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional guidance the schema lacks: pass timeout_ms when a send is expected, and it is capped at 240000. That meaningfully informs when to supply the parameter rather than just how it behaves.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Receive what the designer sent") and anchors it to the producing sibling, open_motion_playground. It also enumerates the payload components (note, context, packet, url, html_path), so an agent knows exactly what arrives without opening any schema.

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?

Gives actionable usage rules: act on the note using the packet, and treat the packet as the instruction when the note is empty. It also says to pass timeout_ms only "when you expect a send". What's missing is any stated exclusion or alternative consumption path, though no competing sibling exists.

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