clip_get_markers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, establishing the read-only nature. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about return keys ('frame IDs as strings'), but does not cover error cases or ordering. This modest addition aligns with the lower bar set by annotations.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second explains the key format. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter read tool with an output schema present. The description sufficiently explains what it returns and the key type; the output schema handles further return structure. No critical gaps exist for an agent to invoke this 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?

The schema description for clip_name ('Name of the clip.') is complete, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter guidance, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return all markers on a clip.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like clip_get_flags (flags vs markers) and timeline_get_markers (clip vs timeline).

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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving markers from a clip, providing context without explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over item_get_markers, but the 'on a clip' phrasing conveys the intended scope.

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