motion_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as a read ('Get'), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The lack of annotations is mitigated by the simple nature of the 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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. Every word is earned, and it 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the tool returns (statuses) and the scope (workspace). However, it could briefly mention the return format or typical use cases for full completeness.

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% with a clear description for workspaceId (optional, returns all if not provided). The description adds 'for a workspace' but does not elaborate on the default behavior beyond what the schema already states. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'available task/project statuses', scoped to 'for a workspace'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_projects which deal with entities rather than their statuses.

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 for retrieving statuses but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned. However, the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer context.

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