streamlabs_get_sources_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (non-unique names may return multiple results), which is valuable. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or whether it returns full source objects, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 one concise sentence (15 words) that is fully front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical caveat about multiple results. There is no filler or redundant 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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious behavior (possible multiple results). It doesn't elaborate on return structure or edge cases, but given the low complexity and sibling tools that imply source objects, it is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic meaning by specifying 'display name', clarifying that the 'name' parameter is the user-facing name, not an ID. However, it lacks details like case sensitivity, exact matching, or whitespace handling, so it only partially compensates.

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 finds sources by their display name, with a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('sources'), and method ('by their display name'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like streamlabs_get_source (likely by ID) and streamlabs_list_sources (all sources) by emphasizing the by-name lookup and the non-uniqueness caveat.

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 provides clear context that the tool should be used when looking up sources by display name, and the warning about multiple results implies it is not suitable when a unique source is expected. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names fill that gap.

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