motion_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is re-parsed fresh from disk and validated, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side-effects (or lack thereof), error behavior, or permission requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a practical use case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, invocation context, and post-save use case. It lacks explicit return-value details, but the output schema likely provides those.

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%, but there is only one parameter, 'path'. The description refers to 'a file' read from disk, making it clear the path parameter identifies the target file. It does not add details like path format or required extensions, but the meaning is sufficiently inferable.

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 a specific verb phrase 'Round-trip-check a file' and clearly states the resource and action: re-parse from disk and confirm the root is a recognizable <ozml> document. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like motion_open or motion_save_as.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'right after motion_save_as to confirm the write didn't corrupt the XML,' providing a clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the use case is well-defined.

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