get_marked_frames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds useful output context by enumerating the return object, including marked_frames fields, marked_frame_count, and marked_frames_locked, which helps an agent understand what is retrieved beyond annotation coverage.

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 two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape immediately following. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 read-only getter with one required parameter, high schema coverage, and rich safety annotations, the description is complete. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by spelling out the return object, giving the agent enough to call and interpret the 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%, and the single parameter sequence_name is fully documented as 'Name of the target Level Sequence.' The description repeats the concept but does not add syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lists every user marked frame in a Level Sequence's movie scene.' It is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like add_marked_frame, remove_marked_frame, clear_marked_frames, and set_marked_frames_locked, so an agent can select it without opening another schema.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites such as needing a valid Level Sequence or how it relates to other sequence inspection tools like get_sequence_tracks or get_level_sequences.

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