obs_hotkey_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it goes far beyond a simple statement. It discloses deduplication, grouping, counts, and the raw response size ('411 strings of which 37 are repeats'). It also reveals the critical trap that a repeated name cannot be addressed individually, which is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance the agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 longer than average, but it is well-structured into purpose, parameter usage, and a warning section. Every major point earns its place, and the front-loaded purpose makes the tool's intent clear immediately. It is slightly verbose, but given the lack of annotations and output schema, the extra explanation is justified.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains what the output contains, how results are grouped and deduplicated, how to narrow results, and what to do with the information. The agent can safely select and invoke this tool without needing additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by explaining that filter is case-insensitive and that pluginsOnly:true skips roughly 390 core entries. It also connects the parameters to the output's deduplicated count behavior, which helps the agent reason about results.

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 and resource: 'List the hotkey action names OBS knows about.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling obsession tools by explaining this is the way to discover what plugins can do, especially since plugin actions usually have no obs-websocket request. The scope is concrete and immediately understandable.

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 states when to use this tool ('how you discover what PLUGINS can do') and gives concrete usage guidance for both parameters. It also warns against triggering repeated actions and tells the agent to 'find the real request instead,' naming alternatives like SetInputMute and SetSceneItemEnabled. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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