get_warp_markers

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

The description indicates a read operation via 'Get', implying no side effects, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, errors, or requirements. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, yet it only provides minimal information.

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 two sentences and a compact parameter list, front-loading the purpose and giving immediate clarity. No filler or redundant text.

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 simple getter with two parameters, the description covers the basic functionality, but it omits the output structure (warp marker representation) and any usage context. The lack of an output schema makes this a notable gap.

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 description gives one-line definitions for both parameters ('The index of the track', 'The index of the clip slot'), which is slightly more than the schema's bare titles. However, it does not specify indexing conventions or constraints, so it adds only marginal semantic value.

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 'Get all warp markers from an audio clip', clearly identifying the action (get) and resource (warp markers) with specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_clip_warp_info or add_warp_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_warp_marker or delete_warp_marker. The description only states what it does, with no context for selection.

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