Get Input Default Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint false, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context like return shape or error behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple and the annotations plus schema cover safety and the parameter adequately. However, the lack of usage alternatives and the absence of an output schema mean the description does not convey what the returned default settings look like or how to obtain valid inputKind values.

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 the single inputKind parameter is fully described in the schema. The description merely restates 'input kind' without adding examples, allowed values, or format details, so it meets the schema baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Gets') and the resource ('default settings for an input kind'). The phrase 'default settings' and 'input kind' distinguishes it from related siblings like obs-get-input-settings and obs-get-filter-default-settings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when current input settings are needed instead of defaults. It also does not mention discovering valid input kinds via obs-get-input-kind-list.

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