streamlabs_list_audio_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the read-only nature and what is returned. It implies read-only via 'List' and discloses that muted state is included. With zero parameters and no side-effectful behavior, this is sufficient, though it could have explicitly stated that no modifications are made.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key output detail, with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete. It states the scope, the included info, and a usage hint. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., names vs IDs) or distinguish itself from the similarly named streamlabs_list_audio_sources_for_scene, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on input semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter info is necessary.

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 lists audio sources for the current scene and includes their muted state, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like streamlabs_list_all_audio_sources and streamlabs_list_audio_sources_for_scene by scoping to the current scene.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before muting/unmuting, providing a clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use list_audio_sources_for_scene), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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