obs-get-input-audio-tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; "Gets" does signal a non-mutating read and it states the scope (all tracks of one input). However, it says nothing about failure behavior when the input is invalid or when both identifier parameters are omitted, nor about the shape of the returned enable states.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded after the verb; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a tool with two optional identifiers, but the wording is efficient.

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 two-optional-parameter read there is no output schema, so the description would ideally hint at the return shape (e.g., a list of track-enabled flags). It covers the resource but leaves the return values and identifier requirements implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both inputName and inputUuid are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning about whether one identifier is preferred or required, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 names a specific verb ("Gets") and resource ("enable state of all audio tracks of an input"), so an agent knows exactly which data is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling obs-set-input-audio-tracks, but the read/write split is inferable from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reads track state, which suggests it precedes or verifies a call to obs-set-input-audio-tracks, but that alternative is never named. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over obs-get-input-settings or how to disambiguate the inputName/inputUuid choice.

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