obs_list_input_kinds

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

No annotations are provided, but the description's 'List every source type' read-only operation is inherently non-mutating. Omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or return contents, but for a pure discovery tool with no side effects the remaining ambiguity is modest.

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?

One sentence, no redundant words: 'List every source type this OBS install supports (tells you which plugins loaded).' The payload is front-loaded and complete.

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?

Tool has one unit of information, and no output schema matters. It may have many sibling tools, but its unique scope is the supported installed source types and plugin discovery. Description contextualizes the info completely; no output schema or parameter info required.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema is complete (100% coverage). There is no information for the description to add; the baseline of 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are not applicable.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every source type') and defines its scope: 'this OBS install supports', plus the parenthetical clarifies the informational value ('tells you which plugins loaded'). It clearly differentiates from sibling enumeration tools.

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 a discovery/enumeration use case ('every source type this OBS install supports') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or any exclusions. Read-only enumeration is clear from 'list', but no alternative tool is directly indicated.

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