Get Input List

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return type ('array'), which is useful, but provides no additional behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or effect of the optional filter. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It conveys the essential purpose immediately and earns its place.

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 list operation with one fully documented optional parameter, the description plus schema is nearly complete. The return value is stated as an array, and no output schema is required to understand the high-level behavior. It could be slightly stronger with explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related list tools, but that is not essential.

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 single optional parameter inputKind is fully documented in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden completely.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Gets') plus resource ('array of all inputs in OBS'), clearly defining the tool's scope. It is distinct from sibling list tools like obs-get-input-kind-list and obs-get-special-inputs. The one-sentence description avoids tautology and matches the title.

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 the tool is used when you need a complete list of OBS inputs, and the optional inputKind filter is available in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools such as obs-get-input-settings or obs-get-special-inputs, nor provide exclusions.

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