resolve_get_markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does explicitly say the operation is a read and specifies the keying scheme, which is useful. However, it does not mention dependence on the current timeline, error behavior, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the word 'Read'. No contradiction exists.

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 filler. Every word contributes: 'Read' indicates operation type, 'timeline markers' indicates resource, and 'keyed by timeline-relative frame' clarifies the mapping.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: what is being read and how markers are keyed. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that it operates on the current timeline, but that is likely implicit in the Resolve tool family context.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaningful context about what is being read and how it is keyed, even though no parameter-level explanation is needed.

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 states the verb 'Read', the resource 'timeline markers', and the key 'timeline-relative frame'. This clearly differentiates it from marker-mutating siblings like resolve_delete_markers, resolve_add_marker, and resolve_create_chapter_markers.

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 read verb implies this is the tool for inspecting markers rather than creating or deleting them, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The intended usage is clear enough from context, yet no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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