aura_motion_study

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: record is bounded, produces .webm only when ffmpeg is present, and the tool 'never claims unobserved library state' (an honesty/no-hallucination constraint). It still omits permissions, where recorded artifacts are written, and whether inspect touches the live page.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the mode breakdown is the second sentence, right where an agent needs it. The dense parenthetical shorthand ('libs/easing/scroll') is efficient but mildly cryptic.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description explains only the mode dimension. Most inputs and the entire return shape are undocumented, which is not enough for reliable invocation.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints at library/easing/scroll filtering and shows record studies frames, but url, frames, viewport, allowLocal, durationMs, and scrollModel remain entirely unexplained in either place.

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?

Names a specific resource (motion studies) and enumerates three modes with concrete scope for each: live runtime scan, bounded frame recording, and stored-study search. No sibling tool touches motion, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, and the headline 'evidence-backed motion guidance' is somewhat abstract, keeping it below 5.

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 mode list functions as routing guidance: inspect for live runtime, record for capturing frames, search for stored studies. It clearly tells the agent which mode fits which intent, but offers no when-not conditions and does not compare against any sibling tool.

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