import_srt_markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It states the core behavior but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing markers, required permissions, or behavior on invalid files). It is adequate but not rich.

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 11-word sentence covering the essential purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded, though somewhat terse for a tool with 6 parameters. 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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what happens after import, such as whether markers are added to the existing timeline or if existing markers are affected. It is incomplete for a tool with multiple parameters and no other structured guidance.

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 high (83%), so the description does not need to explain all parameters in depth. The description adds overall context (importing subtitles as markers) but does not significantly elaborate beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 verb (import), resource (SRT/VTT subtitles), and result (chapter markers on timeline). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_marker, batch_add_markers, import_beat_markers, and import_transcript_markers by specifying the input format.

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 when to use (when you have SRT/VTT files), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Compared to siblings like add_marker (manual) or import_beat_markers (beat-based), the description lacks guidance on choosing the right tool.

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