motion workflow list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are compact status rather than full histories, which is mild additional context but partly overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return-shape caveat. No filler, though it is terse to the point of omitting pagination guidance.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a list tool with two undocumented pagination parameters, the description leaves the agent without guidance on result size or paging.

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% for the limit/offset parameters, and the description says nothing about pagination, defaults, or bounds. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, even though limit/offset are fairly self-explanatory from their names and constraints.

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 clear verb+resource: finding persistent authoring workflows. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read_evidence/read siblings by noting it returns compact status rather than full histories, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"After reconnecting" gives a concrete usage trigger, and "not full histories" signals the boundary against the detail-reading siblings. No explicit when-not/exclusions, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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