get_quickmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, but it doesn't add further context such as output ordering, potential authentication needs, or relationship to regular bookmarks.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted detail.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and clarifies the concept of quickmarks. A minor gap is the lack of differentiation from the sibling get_bookmarks, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema reflects this perfectly. Per baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description has no parameter details to add, but the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'quickmarks (named bookmarks)' in qutebrowser, making the tool's function clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling get_bookmarks, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 the similar get_bookmarks tool. The description only states what it does, not why to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions.

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