Get Scene Item Index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond a restatement of the action. It does not mention potential errors, return format (e.g., integer index), or any edge cases, so it adds minimal value over 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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is slightly under-specified—it could mention that it returns an integer or that it requires a scene item ID—but it remains efficient and does not waste words.

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 a simple getter with four parameters and no output schema. The description does not explicitly state the return value (integer index) or describe what happens if the scene item is not found. Given the annotations and schema detail, it is adequate but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent expecting richer context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no additional clarification about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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: 'Get the index position of a scene item'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling tools like obs-get-scene-item-id (which retrieves ID) and obs-set-scene-item-index (which sets index). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these siblings, so it doesn't earn 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. It does not mention any context like ordering, zero-based indices, or why one might need the index. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are given, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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