motion review read

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine workflow behavior beyond that: it is a read that must be followed by asking the user and awaiting answers, and it warns that joint-position diagrams do not convey skin/cloth/VFX. This is real context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral instruction and the sample caveat. The final VFX sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by clarifying when samples matter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, the post-read workflow, and the sample caveat adequately for a two-parameter read tool. Only a missing sibling comparison keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load for includeSamples. It does explain the semantic distinction (samples are for examining actual poses, not joint diagrams), which is a meaningful clarification of the flag. reviewId is left unexplained but is a self-evident required UUID.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read inspection findings and questions for a review. This clearly separates it from motion_review_start and motion_review_feedback, which are about initiating or supplying a review. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives operating context (ask the user the questions and wait) and a conditional for the optional parameter (include samples only when examining actual poses), but never states when to choose this tool over motion_review_feedback or motion_workflow_read. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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