streamlabs_get_source_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' and gives examples, but does not disclose behavior such as whether the sourceId must exist, error handling, authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned settings object. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 and front-loaded, with a clear main statement followed by helpful examples. Every part earns its place, and there is no irrelevant information.

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 getter with one parameter, the description provides a basic understanding and examples of what 'settings' might include. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format or handle edge cases. The examples give some context, but the description remains minimal for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter meaning. It does not explain what sourceId is or how to obtain it (e.g., from streamlabs_list_sources). The parameter name is self-descriptive to a degree, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate sourceId.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'settings/properties for a source', with concrete examples (URL of a browser source, file path of a media source). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like streamlabs_get_source, which likely returns general source info, by focusing on settings/properties.

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 the tool is used when you need current settings/properties of a source, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous. Examples clarify the type of settings returned, so the intended usage is reasonably clear.

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