item_get_markers

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

With readOnlyHint annotation, the description need not restate safety. It adds a behavioral nuance: the returned markers are keyed by frame offsets, which informs how to interpret output. Beyond this, no side effects, ordering, or edge cases are mentioned, but the annotation covers the critical read-only nature. Score 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a key detail about the return format. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted 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?

This is a simple read-only getter with well-documented parameters and an output schema. The description tells the agent exactly what it returns (all markers) and a key detail about the return structure (keys are frame offsets). With the annotations and schema, the description is sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly described. The description provides no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is warranted when the schema already fully documents the inputs. No extra value is added by the description.

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 tool's function: 'Return all markers on a timeline item.' The verb 'Return' and resource 'markers on a timeline item' are specific, and the additional detail about keys being frame offsets distinguishes return format. It differentiates from sibling tools like clip_get_markers and timeline_get_markers by scoping to timeline items.

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 implies when to use the tool: for retrieving markers from a timeline item. It clearly establishes the resource type, which inherently guides selection among siblings (clip, timeline, item). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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