get_clip_markers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, making safety and idempotency clear. The description adds that it returns all markers on a project item, which is consistent and slightly clarifies the scope, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or return structure.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context. Combined with the annotations, the agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'item_id', which is described as 'Node ID or name of the project item'. The description reiterates 'project item' and implies it should be a clip (from the tool name), but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 markers'), the resource ('a specific project item'), and disambiguates scope ('source clip markers, not sequence markers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sequence_markers_by_type and list_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 description clarifies that this tool is for source clip markers (not sequence markers), which helps the agent choose between this and get_sequence_markers_by_type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs other marking tools like list_markers or add_marker.

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