Get Input Mute State

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 adds minimal behavioral context, not explaining return values or error conditions, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no waste. It directly states the action and target in a front-loaded manner. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, full schema coverage, and clear annotations), the description is adequate. It doesn't specify return value format, but for a simple mute-state getter, this is acceptable. It could mention what a boolean return means, but completeness is generally fine at a 3.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputName' described as 'Name of input to get the mute state of'. The description adds little beyond the schema but is consistent. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is justified.

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 'Gets the audio mute state of an input' uses a specific verb ('gets') and names the resource ('audio mute state of an input'). It clearly indicates the read operation it performs. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like obs-get-input-volume or obs-set-input-mute, but the verb+resource combination is clear enough, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like obs-set-input-mute and obs-toggle-input-mute suggest related operations, the description does not mention when a simple get is appropriate or when to prefer it. This is a clear gap, earning a 2.

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