list_markers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the operation is read-only ('lists all') and scoped to sequences, which is useful. However, it omits details about return data structure, error handling, or whether the sequence must be open.

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, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the action and avoids all redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has only one well-documented parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to convey basic behavior, which it does. However, it leaves unspecified what marker data is returned (e.g., timing, type, comments) and any prerequisites, which is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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 fully describes the sole parameter 'sequenceId' with a clear definition, and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the schema sufficiently carries the semantic weight. 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 identifies the verb 'lists' and resource 'markers' with scope 'in a sequence'. The word 'all' hints at differentiation from type-specific siblings like get_sequence_markers_by_type, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 related alternatives such as get_sequence_markers_by_type or get_clip_markers. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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