Get video settings

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

No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits whatsoever. It does not state that this is a read-only getter, describe the return format, or mention any permissions or side effects. The description fails to carry the burden of behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise and information-dense, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence. It effectively captures the key fields in few words, but the lack of grammatical structure makes it less clear than it could be.

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 getter with an output schema, the description lists the expected fields, which is minimally adequate. However, it does not explicitly state the action ('gets') or provide any usage context, making it somewhat incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 is empty and there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where parameters are not relevant.

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 lists the fields ('Canvas resolution, output resolution and FPS') but lacks a verb or explicit statement of action, relying on the tool name for meaning. It provides specific detail about what settings are included, but does not clearly distinguish from siblings like set_video_settings beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_video_settings or get_obs_stats. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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