Get Input Audio Sync Offset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations and adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what the return value looks like, whether it requires exposing an input, units of the offset). Adding nothing beyond the annotations, it neither exceeds nor falls short of expectations for a tool with strong annotation coverage.

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 sentence, perfectly front-loaded, with zero waste. It takes minimal characters to convey the essence of what the tool does. This is ideal for a tool with a single obvious parameter.

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 one parameter and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description is adequate. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value units or format (e.g., milliseconds), which could matter for an agent interpreting the result. But given no output schema exists and the tool is simple, this is a minor gap, not a critical one.

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% (the only parameter, inputName, has a clear description in the schema). The tool description itself doesn't add anything beyond what the schema already says, which is fine given the schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets the audio sync offset of an input. It uses a specific verb ('Gets') and identifies the resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-audio-sync-offset' (the getter vs setter distinction is implied but not explicit), so it loses a point for not actively differentiating from that near-sibling.

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 implies usage: you'd call this when you need to read the current audio sync offset for a given input. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., you'd use set-input-audio-sync-offset to change it). With dozens of sibling getters for other input properties (volume, mute, etc.), the description doesn't help the agent navigate that decision tree beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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