motion_search

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'by query' without explaining query syntax, result structure, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for an AI agent to anticipate behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too short given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, error handling, or how to interpret results. For a search tool, these are critical context gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: 'by query' is already in the schema's query description. The description does not clarify the 'operation' enum meaning or explain the relationship between workspaceId and workspaceName.

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 verb 'Search' and the resources 'Motion tasks and projects', distinguishing this from sibling tools that focus on specific entities like comments, custom fields, or workspaces. The input schema's searchScope parameter further confirms the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for retrieving a single task by ID, one should use motion_tasks instead. With many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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