get_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does not explain how markers are returned, what happens when both composition and layer are specified, whether an empty result is returned, or whether any lookups can fail. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with four optional selector parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action and scope efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, no output schema, and four optional parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain selector behavior, precedence, return format, or error conditions, leaving important gaps for an AI agent.

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%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters by mentioning 'composition or layer'. It does not clarify how compId/compName or layerName/layerIndex are resolved, whether they are alternatives or complementary, or what happens when none are provided. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 the action ('Get all markers') and the resource scope ('from a composition or layer'). It distinguishes this read-oriented tool from sibling marker tools like add_composition_marker, add_layer_marker, and delete_marker.

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 description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only restates the core function without explaining use cases or selection rules.

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