Get Transition Settings

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), which is the key safety trait. The description adds minimal extra value beyond that, as it doesn't detail what happens if no transition is set or whether settings might be empty. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for the modest additional context.

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 one short, direct sentence that fully communicates the purpose. It's front-loaded and has no filler words. Perfectly concise for what it needs to convey.

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 simple purpose, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'settings' means (e.g., JSON object of current transition properties) or clarify whether 'current transition' refers to the scene override or global. The tool is simple, but a tiny bit more context (like 'returns a map of key-value pairs') would make it more complete.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no params). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter behavior, and it correctly implies no arguments are needed. This is a baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool.

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 settings of the current transition' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (settings of the current transition). It is concise and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obs-set-transition-settings and obs-get-transition-list, though it doesn't explicitly mention which transition (current scene's transition or global). Still, it's specific enough for basic selection.

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 vs. alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites or context, such as needing to ensure a current transition exists or that it differs from obs-get-transition-duration. There's no explicit exclusions or alternatives noted, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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