motion_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first) and that results are capped, but does not say it is a read-only operation, how large the cap is, or whether any auth/scoping applies.

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?

A single dense fragment with no waste and the scope constraints front-loaded. It is effective, though its telegraphic style skips the explicit verb that would make it unmistakable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core scope is stated. Still, the cap size, parameter meanings, and the read-only nature are absent, leaving real gaps for a two-parameter listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'One camera' gestures at the name parameter and 'capped' gestures at limit, but neither parameter is named, defaulted, or bounded, so format and valid ranges remain unclear.

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 fragment names the resource (motion-event recordings) and the scope (one camera, newest first, capped), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like recordings_info or clip_frame, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative siblings (recordings_info, clip_frame, snapshot_camera). The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the names.

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