playlist_list_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the return format but does not disclose potential behavior like sorting, performance impact, or whether markers are returned in a specific order. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 conveys the essential information without extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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?

While the description specifies the return format, it does not explain the meaning of the fields (e.g., what 'mode' represents). Given no output schema, additional context on field semantics would improve completeness. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully detailed.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description naturally cannot add parameter semantics. Per guidelines, baseline 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is expected.

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 returns all timeline markers with a specific data structure ([{pos_bars, name, mode}]), which is a specific verb (Return) and resource (timeline markers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like playlist_add_marker and playlist_delete_marker.

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 used to list markers, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to list before deleting or adding markers). No usage context or exclusions are given.

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