list_markers

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('extract') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention performance, limits (e.g., maximum markers), or error conditions. The behavior beyond fetching marker data is unclear.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient but slightly under-specified.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It does not. With 3 parameters (one required, two enums with many options), the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. Missing details like whether markers include timestamps or other properties.

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 has parameters (filepath, marker_type, format) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; for example, 'marker_type' enum includes 'completed' but the description only lists 'chapter, todo, standard'. No details on what the 'format' parameter does or what 'simple' vs 'detailed' yields.

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 extracts markers with timestamps, specifying types like chapter, todo, standard. This differentiates from sibling tools like add_marker (which creates markers) and import_markers (which imports from external sources). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from batch_add_markers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_clips or list_keywords. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must be a timeline project). The description does not state when not to use or what context is ideal.

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