Fl Markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly explains three modes and jump direction semantics, but leaves gaps: what happens when both add and jump parameters are set simultaneously, what the list output format looks like, and whether add requires both add_name and add_bar strictly.

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?

Two succinct sentences with the main action front-loaded, followed by compact mode notations ('add_name + add_bar', '+1 next, -1 previous'). No redundant words or filler—every token carries semantic load.

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 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details, the description covers the three modes and core jump semantics but omits conflict resolution (jump + add), error behavior, return format, and precise parameter constraints. These are material gaps for a triple-mode tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It gives meaning to jump (+1/-1 direction), add_bar (bar position), and add_name (marker label), and implies add_name + add_bar work together. However, it lacks units for add_bar (1-indexed vs 0-indexed, bars from song start) and does not specify jump range limits or validation.

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 primary action ('List arrangement markers') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes two optional behaviors (add at bar, jump by marker). It differentiates from siblings like fl_goto_bar (bar navigation) and fl_notes_marker (notes context) by scoping exclusively to arrangement 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 implies usage modes through the optional parameter combinations: default listing, add via 'add_name + add_bar', jump via 'jump' with explicit semantics (+1 next, -1 previous). It does not explicitly name alternatives like fl_goto_bar or fl_transport_command, but the mode-based explanation provides adequate implicit guidance.

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