get_markers

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a read operation. The description adds value by stating the return object structure (position, name, index). It does not mention ordering, empty results, or error cases, but this is a simple getter.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the tool's purpose and immediately followed by the return shape. No superfluous information is included.

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 absence of an output schema, the description properly explains the return object's fields. It could mention the empty case or ordering, but for a simple all-markers query the description 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?

With 0 parameters, the schema fully describes the input. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter information is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all markers in the project.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_marker, delete_marker, and go_to_marker by focusing on retrieval of all markers, and from get_regions by naming markers specifically.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need all markers in the project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives for specific markers (e.g., go_to_marker). The description is clear but lacks direct exclusion or comparison with siblings.

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