Get Media Input Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safe read-only nature is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the tool's name, such as what status values are returned, whether it reflects live state, or any prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations exists, but there is no added transparency.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is easily scannable and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what information is returned or what 'status' means in OBS context (e.g., playing, paused, stopped). Given the presence of many media-related sibling tools, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent on expected behavior and return 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the single required parameter inputName. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond 'Name of the media input,' so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 resource ('status of a media input'), making it easy to understand the tool's basic function. It is distinct enough from sibling getters like obs-get-input-settings or obs-get-input-mute by targeting 'media input status' specifically, though the exact meaning of 'status' remains vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative getters. The description does not mention any specific use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as obs-get-input-settings or obs-set-media-input-cursor. Usage is only implied by the name, not explicitly explained.

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