list_markers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, read-only status, return format, or any operational constraints. The agent receives zero behavioral insight.

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 short but entirely uninformative. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, since it conveys no useful information. Similar to the 'process' example, conciseness without substance merits a low score.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what markers are, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with other marker-related tools like add_marker and remove_marker. For a simple list operation, this is inadequately specified.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage. Per the baseline rule, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document and the description need not add anything. However, it adds nothing about the absence of parameters either, but that's not required.

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 is simply 'Blender Studio Pro MCP: list_markers', which merely restates the tool name. It provides no verb or resource to indicate what is being listed, nor does it distinguish from siblings like list_cameras or list_actions. This is a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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