Get Input Kind List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns an array, which is implied by the name, but provides no additional behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination, or return details).

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 that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. It conveys the purpose efficiently with zero fluff.

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 read-only tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It could explain the meaning of 'unversioned' further, but the schema already provides that. No significant gaps.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'unversioned' with a description (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action ('gets an array') and the resource ('all available input kinds in OBS'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obs-get-filter-kind-list and obs-get-transition-kind-list, which are for different kinds.

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 straightforward use: to list input kinds. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over similar listing tools, nor does it exclude use cases. Guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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