motion_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns all schedules (read-only behavior) and specifies the output includes working hours and time zones. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or pagination, which are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose ('Get all schedules'), and the second adds a relevant constraint. No redundant or verbose language.

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 list tool with one fixed parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its limitations. It mentions the return data (working hours, time zones) and that no filters are available. Minor gaps like pagination or rate limits are not critical here.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'operation' with enum ['list'] and 100% coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or its usage. Since the parameter is self-explanatory via the schema, the description adds no additional meaning, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves all schedules, showing weekly working hours and time zones. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'schedules'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects.

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 mentions 'no filtering options', providing clear context that all schedules are returned without filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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