obs_list_inputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists every input/source and includes their kind, but it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., whether hidden or disabled sources are included, or whether the list is sorted). For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but could be slightly richer.

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 two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides a concrete use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and the use case. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned (all inputs with kinds) and why to call it. Additional details would be unnecessary.

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 0 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to explain parameters. It appropriately focuses on output content instead.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'input/source' with the scope 'every' and provides concrete examples of kinds (video capture device, media source, browser, audio input). It distinguishes from siblings like obs_list_input_kinds (which lists available kinds) and obs_list_sources_in_scene (which lists sources in a scene) by focusing on all inputs globally.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to see which cameras and mics OBS can actually see.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. It is sufficient context for straightforward selection.

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