motion_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'supports create, list, and get operations,' which the schema already declares via the operation enum. No side effects, auth needs, or behavioral constraints (e.g., idempotency, pagination) are disclosed.

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 sentence, very concise. However, it could be restructured to front-load the operation types more prominently. No wasted words, but slightly under-specified for action guidance.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description omits return value structure, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and parameter dependencies (e.g., projectId required for get). Key contextual details like the effect of allWorkspaces are left to the schema, which the description should echo.

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 each parameter described, so the description adds no additional semantics. It does not clarify the interaction between parameters (e.g., workspaceId vs workspaceName, or when allWorkspaces applies), meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 names the resource 'Motion projects' and lists three operations (create, list, get), making the verb-object purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_users, missing a chance to specify scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., motion_tasks for tasks, motion_comments for comments). No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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