tracking-marker_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('report') without clarifying whether it mutates state, requires specific prerequisites (like clip loaded), or what happens on errors. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool with one parameter, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

As a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the content or format of the markers, any dependencies (e.g., clip must be loaded), or what the report includes. Given the tool's context (motion tracking), more details on scope and output would be necessary for reliable use.

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%. The input schema only provides a title 'MovieClip name' which gives a hint, but the description adds no extra explanation about the 'clip' parameter, its format, or its relationship to loaded clips. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('report markers') and the scope ('for each track in a clip'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tracking-track_report, which likely focuses on a single track, and tracking-report, which may report overall tracking data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus tracking-track_report or tracking-clip_load. The description implies it is for reporting markers per clip, but no alternative tools or conditional usage are mentioned.

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