obs_special_inputs

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 excels: it carefully explains the complete null semantics ('Any slot a user never configured comes back null... all six are null') and explicitly disambiguates what six nulls do NOT mean ('NOT 'this OBS has no audio' and NOT 'the request failed''). It also discloses the read-only nature. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

At roughly 130 words, the description is on the longer side, but nearly every clause earns its place by resolving genuine ambiguities (the scaffolding script scenario, the 'named input' clarification, the explicit error misreads). It front-loads the purpose sentence and then builds a logical trap-to-resolution arc. Only minor parenthetical asides, like 'which is every rig built by a script,' could be tightened without significant loss.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively carries all explanatory weight, and it covers the highest-risk failure modes (null interpretation, false-negative reads) that would otherwise cause an agent to misroute troubleshooting. The only minor gap is that it never shows an explicit example of the return structure, but for a 0-parameter read of six slot names, the description is nearly complete. This is a small gap given the extensive behavioral coverage.

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 zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter information; the rubric sets a baseline of 4 in this case. The description adds appropriate semantic value by clarifying the meaning of the values the tool returns (the six slot names and their null states), which is the relevant 'parameter-like' semantic here. No parameter details are missing or needed.

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, unique verb+resource framing: 'Names of OBS's six built-in audio slots: Desktop Audio, Desktop Audio 2, and Mic/Aux 1-4' plus 'Read-only,' making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling obs_audio_routing_map by directing users there to find microphones, which explicitly differentiates it from a closely related tool (obs_audio_ricing_map is also named as the alternative).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to resolve the two names OBS itself uses in its settings UI') AND names a concrete alternative ('use obs_audio_routing_map to actually find the microphones'). It explains the critical decision point for when to read this vs. another tool. This exceeds the rubric's bar for explicit alternatives.

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