get_markers

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits—no mention of whether this operation is read-only (likely, but not stated), whether it requires specific permissions or project state, or what happens if both 'compId' and 'compName' are provided (e.g., which takes precedence). Since annotations are entirely absent, the description fails to compensate for this lack of context.

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 very concise at eight words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of crucial detail—it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. A four-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations requires more explanation to be minimally useful.

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?

Given that the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and four unspecified parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of marker objects with time, label, comment), how to distinguish composition vs. layer markers, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if no composition is found). It provides the bare minimum to understand the action but not enough to use the tool effectively.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the four parameters. The description only mentions 'from a composition or layer' but does not explain how 'compId', 'compName', 'layerName', and 'layerIndex' relate or when one is preferred over another. This leaves the agent with minimal semantic information beyond parameter types.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('markers from a composition or layer'), which immediately conveys the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'add_composition_marker', 'add_layer_marker', or 'delete_marker', nor does it specify the output format or scope (e.g., all markers vs. specific marker types).

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, such as when to use 'get_keyframes' instead or how to filter by composition vs. layer. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a composition to be open), which is critical for a tool that expects 'compId' or 'compName' as optional parameters.

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