list_markers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the marker fields returned, the presence of activeSequence, and a non-obvious behavior: the call reports the sequence it actually ran against, which is useful for detecting mid-session sequence changes. It does not mention sorting, limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'List' conveys a safe read operation.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The core action and result fields are front-loaded, followed by the filtering example and the activeSequence diagnostic note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely self-sufficient: it lists marker fields, explains the filter, and flags the activeSequence behavior. Minor gaps remain, such as whether markers are sorted or whether all marker types are included by default, but these are not critical for calling 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?

The schema already documents the optional prefix parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema with a concrete example ('Scout/Social:') and explains how that prefix maps to a real-world use case ('Social Clips markers added by Scout').

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 action ('List markers') with a clear resource scope ('on the active sequence') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_sequence_markers_by_type or get_clip_markers, but the active-sequence scope and field list make the primary purpose 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 gives clear usage context: how to filter by name prefix with a concrete example, and how to use the activeSequence field to detect sequence switching. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the guidance provided is practical and specific.

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