Get Source Active State

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific 'active and show state' context, but doesn't explain what 'active' means (e.g., visible in a scene) or whether the show state refers to a canvas or scene. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond the annotation-provided safety hints.

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, concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose without rambling. However, it could have been slightly more informative about the 'show' state, but overall it is efficient and earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema and only a terse description, the agent might not know what the response includes (e.g., a boolean flag for active, a show state). With 3 parameters and zero required, it's ambiguous how the tool behaves without specifying any parameters. A richer description would clarify return values and parameter optionality, but the annotations help somewhat.

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%, so all three parameters (canvasUuid, sourceName, sourceUuid) are documented in the schema. The description itself doesn't clarify the relationship between canvasUuid and sourceUuid, or whether sourceName is required, but the schema's own descriptions adequately convey parameter meaning. No additional semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 active and show state of a source' clearly states the verb (gets) and the resource (source), and specifies the two aspects being retrieved: active and show state. It distinguishes from siblings like obs-get-input-list or obs-get-scene-items by focusing on the active state of a source, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools in the sibling list.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where a source is part of a scene or canvas, or whether there are other tools for retrieving source state (e.g., obs-get-scene-item-enabled). The context of needing canvasUuid or sourceUuid is implied but not clarified.

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