Describe OBS Request

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds context by noting the protocol is pinned and that the tool returns exact field/constraint specifications. It does not describe output shape or omitted-parameter behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with a precise verb and object, containing no filler or redundant wording.

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 introspection tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently captures the tool's role. It could mention default behavior when no parameters are supplied or expected output shape, but it is still complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already clearly documented in the schema; the description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Inspect') and a clear object ('exact fields and constraints of requests in the pinned OBS WebSocket protocol'), making the tool's function obvious and distinguishing it from the many sibling OBS action tools.

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?

It implies use when you need request field details or constraints, but it never explicitly explains when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as obs-call-request, nor does it describe workflow fit or exclusions.

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