list_markers

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

The word 'List' signals read-only behavior, and the description identifies the data source as sidecar JSON, which provides basic transparency. With no annotations available, it omits useful behavioral details such as what happens when the sidecar is missing, path restrictions, or the role of allow_any_path.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key operation and object, then adds the relevant sidecar and file-type context without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool appears simple, there are no annotations and one parameter is entirely unexplained. An agent can tell what the tool roughly does, but it lacks enough context to handle path-safety or edge-case behavior confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It partially explains 'target' as a media or timeline file, but it leaves 'allow_any_path' completely undefined and provides no format, path, or resolution details.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('markers from the sidecar JSON'), and clarifies that the input is a media or timeline file. This makes the operation clearly distinct from siblings like add_marker, which creates markers, even though alternatives are not explicitly named.

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?

The intended use is implied: read existing markers associated with a media or timeline file. However, it does not state when to prefer an alternative tool, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions such as when the sidecar file must already exist.

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