motion_list_rig

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It states this is a listing operation, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or path requirements. It adds useful context about what 'rig' means in FCP terms.

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 with a clear, efficient explanation, including a helpful parenthetical defining 'rig'. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose well and benefits from having an output schema, reducing the need to explain return values. However, it leaves the 'path' parameter undefined and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. Overall, it's adequate but has notable gaps given no annotations.

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 required parameter 'path' with no description, and the description does not explain what 'path' refers to. There is zero schema description coverage, and the description fails to compensate. Only from the tool's context can one infer 'path' likely points to the template file.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear object 'every published (rig) parameter', and elaborates that these are the controls FCP's Inspector shows. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_get_parameter (single parameter) and motion_list_layers (layers).

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 clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. There is no guidance on exclusions or when to prefer a different tool, such as motion_get_parameter for individual parameters. The context is implied by the tool's focus on published/rig parameters.

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