Get input audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it returns mute/volume state. It does not contradict annotations and provides slight clarification, but does not discuss edge cases like missing parameters or return format.

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 with no filler. The key action and target are immediately clear, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit routing to siblings, but that is covered in usage guidelines. The core functionality and target are clear enough for correct 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 100% with both parameters described (inputId and inputName). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, such as how to choose between them or whether both are needed. It meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('mute and volume state for an OBS input'). It is specific about what is retrieved, and the 'OBS input' wording distinguishes it from mixer-level tools like audio_mixer_get, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 usage for retrieving per-input mute/volume, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like input_audio_set or audio_mixer_get. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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