List audio mixer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the specific audio properties included, which enriches what annotations communicate. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler or redundancy. The action and resource scope are front-loaded, and the field list adds needed detail without bloat.

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 parameterless list tool with a read-only annotation profile and an output schema available, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It is complete and appropriately scoped.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate beyond the schema. This is the baseline-4 case: parameter semantics are fully satisfied by the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('OBS inputs that support audio), naming the included fields (volume, mute, balance, sync offset, monitoring mode, track routing). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like input_list and audio_mixer_get: it lists audio-supporting inputs with their audio properties, rather than listing all inputs or fetching one mixer.

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 context is clear: use this when you need an overview of all audio-capable inputs and their audio settings. It does not explicitly name alternatives like input_list or audio_mixer_get, nor does it state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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