motion_open_in_motion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the server's limitations (cannot render frames or drive UI), but does not explain side effects like launching Motion, blocking behavior, or environment requirements. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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 clear purpose and a succinct explanation of the tool's role. It contains no fluff and every clause contributes to the understanding.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and workflow context well. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Minor gaps include not stating prerequisites like Motion.app being installed, but the overall picture is clear.

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 only parameter, path, has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any details about the path format, absoluteness, or constraints. It only implies that a file is opened, leaving the parameter semantics largely undefined.

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 states a specific verb+resource: "Open a file in Motion.app for visual review." It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that the server cannot render frames or drive Motion's UI, making this the designated way for visual QC.

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 clear context: "final visual QC always happens by handing the file to the app this way," indicating when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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