Get Scene Item Source

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 clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, error handling, or whether the source is a name or object). Given the annotations cover the main risks, a score of 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, direct and efficient. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns a perfect score for conciseness.

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 read-only getter with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what the 'source' refers to (e.g., a string name, an object, or a reference), nor does it explain the relationships between sceneName, sceneUuid, and canvasUuid. Since there is no output schema, more context would be helpful, but the tool's simple nature lowers the requirement.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including names and UUIDs. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it only restates that the tool retrieves a source associated with a scene item. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents each parameter.

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 'Get the source associated with a scene item' clearly states the action (get) and the target (source of a scene item). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like obs-get-scene-item-id or obs-get-scene-item-transform, which deal with different attributes.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, selection criteria among scene identifiers, or scenarios where another getter might be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.

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