generate_marker_csv

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

In the absence of annotations, the description explains that dry_run returns a plan and dry_run=false writes the file. It mentions the output is a deterministic CSV. However, it does not specify what happens if output_path is omitted, nor does it describe potential side effects like overwriting existing files.

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 sentences cover purpose and usage. No filler or redundant information. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple and well-documented. The description explains output columns and dry_run mode. However, it doesn't clarify default behavior for output_path when dry_run=false, and 'interchange mode' might be unclear without domain knowledge. Still, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of dry_run (plan vs write) and detailing the CSV columns, which maps to the markers array items. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 writes a deterministic marker manifest CSV with specified columns (frame, timecode, seconds, name, color, note, duration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_add_markers by indicating it is for interchange mode when live insertion is unavailable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use in interchange mode where live marker insertion is unavailable' and explains the dry_run parameter behavior (returns plan vs writes file). This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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