get_locators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies the returned data (name and beat position). It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a listing operation, making it sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence, a usage hint in the second, and a brief parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description already states that the tool returns name and beat position. It does not specify the exact structure (array, objects), but for a simple listing tool with a telemetry-only parameter, the description covers the essentials and is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has a single parameter 'user_prompt' with no description. The tool description adds meaningful context: 'The original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry).' This goes beyond the schema by explaining the parameter's purpose and that it is non-functional.

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 'List all arrangement locators (markers/cue points) with their name and beat position.' This uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('arrangement locators'), and includes output details, distinguishing it from siblings like set_locator or create_section_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?

The description provides a direct use case: 'Use this to find a named marker (e.g. "Drop") before navigating or placing clips relative to it.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.

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