Get audio mixer input

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds 'complete' state, clarifying the scope of the response. While it doesn't mention error behavior or edge cases, the annotations handle the primary behavioral expectations, and the description adds useful context beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope immediately. There is zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is concise and efficiently structured.

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 tool is a simple read operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not clarify that neither parameter is required (which is unusual), but the schema covers parameter details. For a read-only tool with annotations and output schema, this is adequately complete, though it could mention that at least one identifier is typically needed.

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 100%, so both parameters (inputId and inputName) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, such as which identifier is preferred or whether both can be used. It remains at the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete OBS mixer state'), scoped to 'one audio-capable input'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like audio_mixer_list (which returns all mixers) and audio_mixer_set (which modifies), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 states the tool is for a single input, providing clear context for when to use it (when you need mixer state for one specific input). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as pointing to audio_mixer_list for all inputs. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools.

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