Get Super Source State

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something annotations cannot: it discloses the returned state composition (4 box states, art properties, border settings), which is valuable because no output schema exists. It stops short of noting freshness/caching behavior or error cases.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then Args and Returns in a compact structure. The Returns line partially restates the opening sentence, but it earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the parameter's default and typical cardinality, and the shape of the returned object. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents ssrcId with default 0 and range 0-3. The description adds only a small operational note ("Most ATEMs have only one Super Source"), which explains why the default is usually sufficient but gives no further format or selection guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the current Super Source state") and enumerates the contents: box positions/sources, art settings, border settings. That distinguishes it from the sibling setters (atem_set_supersource_box/layout/art/border), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a 'get' tool whose setter counterparts exist elsewhere in the tool list suggests it is the read side of a read-modify-write flow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of taking a snapshot before calling the set_* tools, and no exclusions.

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