Get Special Inputs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establish a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating it retrieves names, which is implied by 'Gets'. No contradiction. It doesn't mention any caveats like empty lists or special cases, but with strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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 that is front-loaded and free of waste. It could be slightly more informative about what 'special inputs' encompasses, but it is appropriately brief.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, given the extensive sibling list, it would be more complete if it clarified the scope of 'special inputs' (e.g., which kinds of sources qualify), but that is a minor gap.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not clarify parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description confirms the tool's purpose (getting names) without requiring parameter explanation.

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 names of all special inputs' is a clear verb+resource statement, but it doesn't specify what 'special inputs' means or how it relates to the many sibling tools. The title adds nothing. The description is adequate but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-get-input-list' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list'. It doesn't explain the use case for special inputs, so an agent would have to guess.

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