read_motion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses what is read (timelines, keys, tracks, styles) and hints at read-only behavior through the verb 'read'. However, it does not detail potential errors, performance implications, or output structure, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences: the first succinctly states purpose and components, the second provides usage advice. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the motion state components and gives a use case. However, it lacks details on the output format, which could help the agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter (nodeId) already described as 'Figma node id, e.g. '12:34''. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool reads the current motion state of a node, listing specific components (timelines, animated property keys, manual keyframe tracks, applied animation styles). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a read-only verification step.

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 explicitly advises running this tool after applying animations to confirm results and discover real property field names, providing a clear context for use. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but implies a verification role.

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