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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it reveals nothing beyond the vague 'manage' phrase. There is no mention of side effects, return behavior, pagination, permissions, or operation-specific effects.

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, using only five words with no wasted content. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two operations and four parameters, and the single phrase lacks structural separation between concerns.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is almost entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, or what the 'create' operation requires beyond the schema fields, leaving the agent without essential execution context.

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 adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as examples or dependencies, but also doesn't mislead.

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' identifies the resource (comments on tasks) but uses the vague verb 'manage' without specifying the concrete operations (list, create) available in the schema. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by resource type but lacks a clear action scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain how to choose between the 'list' and 'create' operations. It gives no context about prerequisites, workflows, 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 carries the full burden. It explains parameter requirements and the distinction between fieldId and valueId, but does not disclose the effects of destructive operations (e.g., deletion) or any side effects. The operational mechanics are clear, but behavioral outcomes beyond invocation are not fully covered.

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 compact, single-sentence, and uses a semicolon-separated list to convey operation-specific requirements without fluff. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and uses every word to convey actionable information.

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 multi-operation tool with 12 parameters, the description is highly complete in guiding correct invocation by stating required params per operation. It does not cover return values or error handling, but given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, the coverage is strong.

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% and each parameter already includes descriptions like 'Required for: create.' The description adds a consolidated operation-required summary, which is convenient but does not significantly go beyond the schema's own semantics. It repeats rather than deepens the existing parameter meaning.

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 begins with 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects,' which clearly states the verb 'Manage' and the resource 'custom fields' for tasks/projects. It enumerates specific operations (list, create, delete, add_to_project, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle tasks, schedules, etc.

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 parameters for each operation, effectively serving as usage instructions. It does not mention when to avoid using this tool or alternatives, but the operation-specific guidance is clear and actionable.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists operations without revealing side effects (e.g., create is destructive, get is read-only), permissions, rate limits, or return values. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the operation enum already implies.

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 front-loaded with the resource and operations. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 multi-operation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not clarify how parameters relate to specific operations (e.g., get requires projectId) or what the return format is. However, the rich schema compensates for parameter details, making the description adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, and each parameter has a descriptive comment. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond naming the operations, which is already captured in the enum. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource ('Motion projects') and explicitly lists supported operations ('create, list, and get'). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_schedules.

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 project management via the resource name and operation list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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?

There are no annotations to cover safety/read-only hints, and the description only lists required params; it does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a recurring task schedules it; deletion is permanent) or return values.

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 with a compact list, front-loading the verb+resource and providing essential per-operation requirements without any fluff.

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 params, nested frequency object, no output schema), this description is too terse. It doesn't explain how to construct a valid frequency configuration or any behavioral expectations, leaving the agent reliant on the schema for most details.

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?

All 15 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds only an operation-to-parameter mapping, which is already embedded in each parameter's 'Required for' notes. 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 states the tool manages recurring tasks and enumerates three operations (list, create, delete) with required params. The term 'recurring' distinguishes it from regular task tools like motion_tasks, though 'manage' is somewhat generic.

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?

Provides explicit required-parameter sets per operation, giving clear context for when to use each operation. However, it lacks an explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use motion_tasks instead).

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 present, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the API returns all schedules with no filtering options, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination, response structure, or other potential behaviors like rate limits.

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 with no unnecessary words; the essential information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds meaningful context about the lack of filtering.

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 provides the core purpose, the data content, and the no-filtering behavior, which is sufficient for a simple list tool. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the response format since there is no output schema.

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 single parameter (operation) is fully described in the schema with a description and enum. The tool description does not add further parameter-level details, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score 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 tool retrieves all schedules, specifying the contents (weekly working hours and time zones). It distinguishes itself from siblings like motion_search by explicitly noting there are no filtering options.

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 indicates this is for retrieving unfiltered schedule data, implying that any filtered schedule needs would require another tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, with no information about return format, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence ('Search Motion tasks and projects by query') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core function.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is quite minimal. It does not indicate how results are returned, how to use searchScope, or any behavioral constraints. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks overarching context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, covering 100% of them, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, but it does not need to compensate due to high schema coverage.

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 'Search Motion tasks and projects by query' clearly identifies the verb (search), the resource (Motion tasks and projects), and the scope (by query). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like motion_tasks and motion_projects by indicating a cross-resource search capability.

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 the tool is for searching tasks and projects, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use search versus browsing alternatives. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly instructed.

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 the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the schema adds the optional workspaceId behavior. However, the description itself does not disclose safety details like auth requirements or response format beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is direct and waste-free. It conveys the primary action and scope immediately.

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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells you the resource type and scope. However, it doesn't mention the return shape (e.g., list of strings) or any default behavior if workspaceId is omitted, though the schema covers the latter.

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% with the parameter fully explained ('optional, returns all statuses if not specified'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'available task/project statuses' and scope 'for a workspace'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects.

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 usage context is implied: you would use this tool when you need statuses for tasks/projects in a workspace. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives among the 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?

With no annotations provided, the description was expected to disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists operation names without explaining side effects, permissions, rate limits, or results. Destructive operations like delete or move are not given any cautionary or contextual 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely names the resource and the supported operations. Every element is informative, and there is 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?

This is a complex, 8-operation tool with 19 parameters and no annotations or output schema. The brief description leaves operation-specific behaviors, return formats, and safety warnings entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a tool this broad.

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 input schema covers 100% of the 19 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond saying operations are supported, which does not exceed the schema's coverage.

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 manages Motion tasks and lists all eight supported operations (create, list, get, update, delete, move, unassign, list_all_uncompleted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on schedules, statuses, projects, and other domains.

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 use for task operations via 'Manage Motion tasks' and the operation list, but it does not explicitly address when to prefer this tool over siblings like motion_search or motion_schedules, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only (only list/current) and gives no information about permissions, side effects, or return format. The word 'manage' falsely implies mutating behavior.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key resource, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. As conciseness, it earns a high score, though clarity suffers.

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 tool has two distinct operations with multiple optional parameters, but the description does not explain how to choose between them, how filters apply, or what the return value looks like. With no output schema and a minimal description, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 and their meanings. However, the description adds no additional context about how parameters interact or which are required for specific operations, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

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 identifies the resource (users) and a general action ('manage' and 'get current user'), but 'manage' is vague and misleading since the tool only supports 'list' and 'current' operations, not full CRUD. It does not clearly distinguish the two operations or their scopes.

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, or when to use 'list' versus 'current'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, filters, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that only list and get operations are supported, which implies read-only capabilities, but it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or response formats. The scope is disclosed, but not deeply.

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 that conveys the essential purpose and supported operations without any wasted words. It is extremely concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description is somewhat adequate. However, it does not explain what list returns (e.g., all workspaces) or what get returns, nor any error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with Motion APIs.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters, with clear descriptions for 'operation' and 'workspaceId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 tool manages Motion workspaces and supports list and get operations, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects. However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic, and the exact behavior of list/get is not fully elaborated.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the resource name 'workspaces' and the operations listed, which does not sufficiently help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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