list_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('extract') but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. The behavior of the tool is minimally described.

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 8-word sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity. It is not verbose, but the lack of structure (e.g., no bullet points or additional context) reduces its effectiveness.

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 has three parameters (one required, two enums) and no output schema, the description is insufficient to fully guide an agent. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, default behavior, or return format. A more complete description would cover these 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the three parameters. It only mentions 'with timestamps' for output, not how filepath, marker_type, or format affect the extraction. The agent receives no help understanding valid inputs beyond the schema enums.

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 'extract' and resource 'markers', including the types it covers (chapter, todo, standard). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_marker (creation) and list_clips (different resource). However, it could be more explicit about the source (e.g., from a video file or timeline).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. With many sibling marker-related tools (e.g., batch_add_markers, import_beat_markers), the agent is left to infer the appropriate use case.

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