playlist_list_markers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate a read-only operation and specifies the return format, but it does not disclose ordering, possible values of 'mode', or whether any filtering or side effects apply. Adequate for a simple getter, but minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation, resource, and return format. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, the resource, and the expected return shape. It could be slightly richer by explaining the 'mode' field, but it is otherwise complete for a zero-argument list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 ('Return') and resource ('all timeline markers'), and includes the exact return shape. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like playlist_add_marker and playlist_delete_marker, which mutate markers rather than list 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playlist_add_marker, playlist_delete_marker, or playlist_list_clips. The intended use is only implied by the resource being returned, with no explicit exclusions or routing.

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