obs-get-scene-item-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if the scene or source doesn't exist), whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), or any performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get the ID'), making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage, achieving optimal conciseness for this simple tool.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or output format (since no output schema exists). For a simple lookup tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions for 'sceneName' and 'sourceName'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Get the ID') and the target ('scene item by its source name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar 'get' siblings like 'obs-get-scene-items' or 'obs-get-scene-list', which would require a more specific comparison to achieve a perfect 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene or source), nor does it compare it to sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-items' that might retrieve similar information. Without any contextual usage hints, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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