get_clip_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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether returned markers include fields like name/comment/color, or ordering behavior. For a no-annotation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it errs toward terseness given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a marker result contains and any constraints on identifying the clip across tracks. Instead it is a single sentence, leaving the agent to guess at the return shape and error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (clipIndex, trackType, trackIndex) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the word 'clip' and does not explain that a clip is identified by the track type/track index/clip index triple, so it adds nothing beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('markers'), scoped to 'a specific clip', which distinguishes it from the sibling get_markers (likely sequence/project-level). It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but an agent can infer the difference from the 'clip' scoping.

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 only implied: the 'on a specific clip' phrasing suggests this is the clip-scoped counterpart to get_markers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the routing from the sibling list.

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