Get Input Audio Monitor Type

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which already communicate that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what 'monitor type' values exist, if null is returned for non-audio inputs). Since the description is consistent with annotations and they already convey the key safe-read behavior, it gains no extra credit but doesn't need to.

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 9 words, it is concise and front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 low complexity of the tool, a single descriptive sentence is arguably adequate. However, some additional context about potential return values or error conditions might help, but it is not strictly necessary. Overall, it does enough.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with a clear description for 'inputName'. The description adds no additional input-specific context, but none is strongly needed. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Gets the audio monitor type of an input' uses a clear verb and resource, specifying it retrieves a setting for an audio input. It is not obviously a tautology, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-audio-monitor-type' beyond the get/set distinction, and doesn't elaborate on what an 'audio monitor type' is. It is clear for an expert familiar with OBS, but lacks context for a general agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use the setter or how this relates to other input audio queries like mute or volume. The description implies it is for retrieving a setting, but with no context on prerequisites or typical use cases, it does not help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice over others.

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