List audio sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool lists all audio sources and their mute/volume state, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any edge cases (e.g., behavior when no sources exist or OBS is disconnected). For a simple list operation, the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit about its read-only nature.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and immediately states the output scope. It contains no filler words or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate for an agent to understand what it does. It clearly defines the resource ('all audio sources') and the output content ('mute and volume state'). However, it lacks any contextual guidance on when to choose this over related tools like get_audio_status, so it is not fully complete.

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 description cannot add meaning beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids mentioning any parameters. No further semantic clarification is 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 verb ('List') and resource ('audio sources') and clearly states the scope ('all') and the included information (mute and volume state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sources or get_audio_status, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's best for getting an overview of all audio sources, nor does it suggest using get_volume or get_audio_status for individual source details. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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