Get Input Settings

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 safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what is returned if the input does not exist or whether the result is a key-value settings object, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 short and free of filler, but the single sentence repeats information already present in the title and parameter schema. It is terse rather than helpfully precise, so it is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 has rich annotations, but with no output schema and no mention that it retrieves current settings, the description is incomplete in this context. The ambiguity with obs-get-input-default-settings and the lack of return-value detail make it insufficient for confident selection and invocation.

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 fully describes the only parameter: inputName is 'Name of the input to get the settings of'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score 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 'Gets the settings of an input' is essentially a restatement of the title 'Get Input Settings' and the inputName parameter, adding no new scope such as 'current settings' or 'by name'. It also does not differentiate from the closely related sibling obs-get-input-default-settings, leaving ambiguity about whether this returns actual configured settings vs defaults.

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 like obs-get-input-default-settings or obs-set-input-settings. It has no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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