get_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't confirm the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, what happens with no active timeline, or what a marker contains. Only the word 'active' hints at state dependency.

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 single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise—it spends its one clause on a phrase ('active timeline') that raises more questions than it answers and front-loads nothing useful about output or state.

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 no-param, undocumented, annotation-free read tool, the description should at least state the return shape (list of markers?), the read-only nature, and the active-timeline precondition. None of that is present, and there is no output schema to lean on.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate, though it also doesn't clarify that no arguments are accepted.

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?

States a verb and resource (get markers) and adds scope ('on the active timeline'), which distinguishes it somewhat from add_marker/delete_marker. However, 'markers' is never defined and the phrasing barely exceeds restating the tool name, so it is only marginally better than tautology.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'active timeline' implies a dependency on set_current_timeline/load_project, but the agent must infer that; nothing tells it when to prefer this over other timeline reads or what to do if no timeline is active.

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