Get input settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's role is limited. It adds that the tool returns the input kind and current settings, which is useful, but it does not address potential edge cases like when both params are provided, whether one is sufficient, or error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It directly states what the tool does and front-loads the action and resource.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and simple read-only behavior, so return values are presumably documented there. However, the description leaves ambiguity about parameter usage: with zero required parameters, it is unclear whether at least one must be supplied. This gap could lead an agent to call the tool without an identifier, resulting in an error. For a simple getter, more clarity on the required input would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both inputId and inputName have clear descriptions in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, it does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., whether either is required, precedence if both are given). The baseline of 3 is justified since the schema carries the parameter information but the description adds no extra semantic guidance.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('OBS input kind and its current settings'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like input_list or input_settings_set, but the name and description make it evident that this targets a single input's settings, not listing or modifying them.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description – you use this when you need the current settings of a specific OBS input. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over input_list or input_settings_set, nor does it mention that at least one of inputId or inputName should be provided.

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