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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or auth requirements; it only states the tool manages comments without further detail.

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 too terse ('Manage comments on tasks'), lacking essential detail; this is under-specification, not conciseness.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description provides no context on behavior, return values, or side effects; it is insufficient for a tool with four parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself documents parameters adequately.

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 'Manage comments on tasks' is vague; it does not specify which operations (list/create) are available, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like motion_tasks.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutating operations (create, delete, add/remove) but does not describe side effects, reversibility, permissions, rate limits, or the nature of changes. The description focuses on parameter requirements rather than behavioral traits.

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 efficiently structured: a short purpose statement followed by operation-specific requirements listed clearly. It is relatively long due to the number of operations, but every sentence adds necessary information. Could be slightly more concise by reducing redundancy (e.g., repeating 'workspaceId/workspaceName' in multiple operations).

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 thoroughly covers input parameter requirements for all operations. However, it does not explain return values (e.g., list operations return custom fields, create returns a field object) or error conditions. Given the complexity (12 parameters, 7 operations) and lack of output schema, some output/error context would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds significant value by grouping required parameters per operation (e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName'), which is not captured in the schema's flat 'required' array. This organized presentation greatly aids agent understanding.

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 clearly states 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects' and enumerates seven specific operations (list, create, delete, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other entities.

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 explicit 'Required params per operation' for each of the seven operations, guiding the agent on when to use each operation and what parameters are necessary. It does not, however, indicate when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools, but within the scope of custom fields management it is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool that performs mutations (create), this is a significant gap.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the resource and operations. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without much bloat.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple operations) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values for each operation, state changes (e.g., created project is persisted), or prerequisites (e.g., workspaceId for create).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the supported operations, which is already encoded in the 'operation' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the resource (Motion projects) and the supported operations (create, list, get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_workspaces by focusing on projects. However, it does not specify the exact nature of 'get' (e.g., whether it returns a single project by ID or details).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists operations without explaining context or exclusions. For instance, it does not clarify when to use create vs list vs get, or when to prefer motion_projects over motion_tasks.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It only states parameter requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences front-loading the purpose and then listing operation-specific requirements. Every sentence is essential with no redundancy.

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 complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, multiple operations) and the absence of an output schema, the description omits important context such as return values, error handling, and behavior nuances, making it incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description groups required params by operation, adding marginal value over the schema but no deeper semantic insights.

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 clearly states 'Manage recurring tasks' and enumerates three operations (list, create, delete) with required parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like motion_tasks which handle one-off tasks.

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 lists required parameters per operation, guiding the agent on mandatory inputs. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like motion_tasks to clarify when to use each.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all schedules and has no filtering, but does not mention if it's read-only, requires authentication, or handles pagination. Basic transparency but missing behavioral details.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: first defines the core functionality, second adds the constraint of no filtering. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what data it returns (working hours, time zones), and its limitation (no filtering). Missing potential details like response format or error conditions, but adequate for a simple tool.

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 100% for the only parameter ('operation'), which is fully described in the schema as an enum with value 'list'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get all schedules showing weekly working hours and time zones', which specifies the verb (get), resource (schedules), and output scope. It distinguishes from siblings by noting no filtering, making the purpose 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?

The description states 'no filtering options', implying this tool is for unfiltered retrieval of all schedules. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether the search is limited to accessible workspaces or any side effects. Minimal but adequate for a search tool.

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 no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and earned.

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?

With 6 parameters, required operation enum ('content' unexplained), and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps such as result format, pagination, and the meaning of 'content' operation.

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 100%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resources 'Motion tasks and projects', with the method 'by query'. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_projects which are CRUD operations.

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 implies usage for searching tasks and projects but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like motion_tasks or motion_projects for retrieval. No exclusion criteria or context about when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get available statuses', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limiting, or scope (e.g., workspace-specific vs. global).

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. The description is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action.

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 simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. However, it would benefit from including the return value format or behavior when workspaceId is omitted.

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 100%, so the parameter is well-documented. The description adds the phrase 'task/project statuses', which provides context beyond the schema. No additional depth is needed.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves task/project statuses for a workspace. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like motion_projects or motion_tasks, but could be more explicit about the scope (list vs. get).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide any context about prerequisites or cases where it should be avoided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations. It only names operations without explaining behavior (e.g., update modifies existing tasks, delete is irreversible). The parameter descriptions in the schema provide some detail but the top-level description lacks transparency.

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, which is concise but too brief for a tool with 19 parameters and 8 operations. It lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that would improve readability and scannability.

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 complex tool with many parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain expected outputs, error handling, or usage patterns. The schema descriptions help but the overall description is insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists operations. The schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, so no additional value from the description.

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 clearly states it manages Motion tasks and lists the supported operations (create, list, get, update, delete, move, unassign, list_all_uncompleted). It distinguishes from sibling tools which handle other Motion entities (comments, projects, etc.), so the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., motion_search for advanced search). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The description assumes the agent knows the context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not clarify behavioral traits such as read-only vs. write operations, authentication requirements, or side effects. The term 'manage' misleadingly suggests mutation, while the schema only includes read operations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 8 words) with no fluff. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness, losing some informative power.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how operations relate to parameters, expected return formats, or error handling. A more detailed description would improve agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not contradict or confuse.

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 'Manage users and get current user information', which indicates a broad scope. However, the schema only supports 'list' and 'current' operations, so 'manage' is too vague and not fully aligned with actual functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., motion_workspaces). The sibling tools cover different resources, but there is no explicit context about which operation to choose or prerequisites.

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

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

The description lacks details on behavioral aspects such as whether operations are read-only, required permissions, or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden but falls short.

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 very concise and front-loaded, stating the resource and operations in one sentence. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 list/get tool, the description covers the basic functionality but omits details about return values (no output schema) and potential edge cases, leaving the agent with gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating the operations and hinting at workspaceId requirement already present in the schema.

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 clearly states the resource ('Motion workspaces') and the supported operations ('list and get'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different entities like tasks or users.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use list vs. get, nor any context about alternatives or prerequisites. The description is purely declarative without usage advice.

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