marker_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions the 200-item cap and that results are tagged with type, but does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or read-only. However, 'list' inherently implies no side effects, so the transparency is adequate.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and directly states the function and key constraints.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently hints at the return format (list of markers with types and a 200 limit) without needing to explain return values in detail. It does not cover error scenarios, but that is acceptable for a list operation.

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 only parameter, track_target, is well described as 'Marker track {guid} from event_add_marker_track', providing context about its format and origin. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema's generic 'Track Target' label.

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: listing markers, regions, sustains, and transitions on a marker track, with a cap of 200 and tagging by type. It uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from other marker operations like add or delete.

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 usage when you need to enumerate all markers on a track, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of marker_add'). The context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear, but explicit guidance is absent.

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