list_markers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the sequence need not be active, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any other details like return format or potential errors. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes an essential condition. Perfectly structured for quick understanding.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and a key constraint. It does not explain return values, but for a list operation it's implicitly clear. Slightly more detail could be added to distinguish from marker-type-specific tools, but it's not necessary.

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 already provides high coverage (100%) for the single parameter sequenceId, including its origin and type. The description adds no extra semantic value for the parameter beyond what schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it lists all markers in a specified sequence, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_sequences and get_sequence_markers_by_type by noting it returns all markers without filtering.

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?

Provides a key usage condition (sequence does not need to be active) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over similar tools like get_sequence_markers_by_type or get_clip_markers. The note about non-active sequence gives context, but no explicit when-not guidance.

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