get_warp_markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The description indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., no warp markers), or authorization requirements. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and adding a clarifying detail. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 is simple with two required parameters and an output schema, but the description does not explain how to determine the indices or any prerequisites. While the output schema exists, the description lacks guidance for an agent unfamiliar with the domain, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter titles provide no context beyond names. The description does not explain what 'track_index' and 'slot_index' represent, nor how to obtain them. The agent is left to infer the semantics from the tool name, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 warp markers') and the resource ('in an audio clip'), with additional detail about what it returns ('beat-to-sample-time mappings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_warp_marker' which adds markers instead of retrieving 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?

The purpose is specific enough to imply when to use it (to retrieve warp markers), but no explicit guidance is given on prerequisites (e.g., the clip must exist and contain warp markers) or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or context relative to siblings.

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