markers_query

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Query' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and 'Filter' describes selection rather than modification. It does not detail permissions or rate limits, but nothing in the text implies hidden side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every phrase adds useful information about what the tool does and how it filters.

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 description covers intent and filter semantics well, and the presence of an output schema means return shape does not need to be described. However, it leaves potential value domains for type/color/scope and frame-range boundary behavior unspecified, so an agent may need external knowledge to make non-trivial calls confidently.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description maps all five parameters into meaningful filter concepts: type, color, scope, and frame range for start/end. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, yet it stops short of specifying allowed values, units, or boundary semantics, so compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a concrete resource ('timeline, item, and clip markers'), and immediately lists filter dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it as a read-only retrieval tool from write-oriented siblings like marker_upsert and markers_clear.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to retrieve markers, optionally filtered by type, color, scope, or frame range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only verb makes the intended use unambiguous.

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