Open Source Projector

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't state whether multiple projectors can be opened, whether it opens a new window each time, or what happens if the source is deleted. The idempotentHint=true is present but not corroborated or explained. Given the lack of added detail, this dimension is weak.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. The structure is front-loaded with the verb, making it easy to parse.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't mention how the projector behaves (windowed vs fullscreen), how monitorIndex works (though schema does), or any side effects. An agent would struggle to understand the full implications of calling this tool. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, with all five parameters described (canvasUuid, sourceName, sourceUuid, monitorIndex, projectorGeometry). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 action ('opens') and object ('projector') with a target ('for a source'), which is clear and distinguishable from the sibling tool 'obs-open-video-mix-projector' that targets video mix. However, it does not elaborate on what a projector is or what 'open' implies (e.g., separate window or monitor), leaving some ambiguity for users unfamiliar with OBS terminology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-open-video-mix-projector' or how it fits into a workflow. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., source must exist) or typical use cases, so an agent would not know when to invoke it over similar tools.

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