get_markers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and mostly fails: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether markers are returned in timeline order, whether clip markers are included, or what an empty result looks like. The only behavioral content is the word 'All', which hints at no pagination or filtering.

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 short fragment with no filler and the scope constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness tips into under-specification rather than model conciseness.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no parameter docs, so the description is the only source of information about the result — yet it never says what a marker contains or how the list is structured. For a zero-param read tool that an agent will call blind, this leaves a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit target ('active sequence'). Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 fragment names the resource and its scope ('markers on the active sequence'), which does implicitly distinguish it from get_clip_markers and get_project_item_markers. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that it reads/returns markers rather than, say, counting or selecting 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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an active sequence must exist), and no pointer to get_clip_markers or get_project_item_markers as alternatives. The scope phrase is the only routing signal, and it is incidental.

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