Trigger Transition

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only action, and the description adds the Studio Mode requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., transition occurs between preview and program) or what errors might arise if Studio Mode is not enabled. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds marginal but acceptable context, scoring a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key prerequisite. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent 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?

For a simple zero-parameter action, the description is mostly sufficient—it names the action and a requirement. However, it lacks differentiation from the similar sibling tool 'obs-trigger-studio-transition' and does not describe expected behavior or potential failure modes when Studio Mode is disabled, leaving some ambiguity in execution context.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema coverage is vacuous (100% with no properties). No additional semantic value is required or provided.

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 'Trigger a scene transition in OBS' clearly states the verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'obs-trigger-studio-transition', which likely serves a similar or identical function, thus missing the highest clarity score.

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 provides only a prerequisite ('Studio Mode must be enabled') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-trigger-studio-transition' or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or fallback options, leaving the agent without clear contextual direction.

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