Get Transition Cursor

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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe any side effects or prerequisites. Since it just re-states the read behavior, it offers limited additional 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 that clearly states the action and resource. No filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool with no parameters.

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's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any indication of return value format or when to use it, which could be useful. The lack of output schema means the agent might want more info on what 'position' means, but the purpose is clear enough for basic invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adequately conveys the purpose without needing param details.

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 states the tool retrieves the current scene transition cursor position, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly indicates a read operation on a particular OBS state, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage transitions or other media cursor states.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is a read-only query, nor does it contrast with related 'set' or 'offset' cursor tools like obs-set-media-input-cursor. It lacks any context about when to use it in a workflow.

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