list_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says that markers are returned with their times; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what scope of markers is covered, or whether any permissions or side effects apply.

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 compact phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded but grammatically a fragment rather than a fully structured statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives some useful return context (marker types and times). However, it leaves the scope ambiguous (e.g., current timeline vs. entire project) and does not fully describe the returned marker fields, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema is fully described (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the resource (markers) and enumerates the included types (standard, to-do, chapter), making it clear that it retrieves all markers with their times. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and does not contrast itself with sibling tools like add_marker or remove_markers, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as add_marker and remove_markers present, an agent receives no explicit context about the appropriate situation for listing markers or any prerequisites.

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