Get Input Audio Tracks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens if the input is invalid or how the response is structured. Since the bar is lower with annotations, a 3 is appropriate for minimal added value beyond the structured declarations.

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 with no redundant words. It states the action and target efficiently, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose quickly.

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 no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what is retrieved, and the annotations handle safety. It might benefit from noting the return format (e.g., list of track numbers), but given the low complexity and full parameter schema coverage, it is sufficiently 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?

Both parameters (inputName and inputUuid) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as whether either parameter is required or how they interact. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies, and the description does not compensate further.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'enabled audio tracks for an input', distinguishing it from sibling tools like obs-set-input-audio-tracks. It precisely identifies what is retrieved without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use it (to retrieve the enabled audio tracks of an input) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It is straightforward for a getter, and its purpose stands out among sibling read/write tools, though it could name the setter as an alternative.

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