obs-get-scene-transition-override

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say what happens when a scene has no override (null result vs. falling back to the default transition), whether the call is read-only/non-mutating in practice, or what the response shape looks like, all of which matter for interpreting the result.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good for front-loading. But the sentence is clumsy and passive ('the scene transition overridden for a scene'), costing clarity that a few extra precise words would have fixed without adding bloat.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the read semantics and return behavior, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell from this definition what a missing override yields or which scene identifier is expected, leaving meaningful gaps for such a simple query.

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 parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. However, both params are optional and the schema does not explain the key ambiguity an agent faces, namely whether sceneName or sceneUuid should be supplied and what happens if neither or both are given; the description does not compensate for that.

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 a specific OBS resource ('scene transition override') scoped to a single scene, which distinguishes it adequately from the sibling obs-set-scene-transition-override. The phrasing 'the scene transition overridden for a scene' is grammatically awkward and slightly muddles whether it returns the per-scene override or the effective transition, but the intent is still recoverable.

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 call this versus obs-get-current-transition, obs-get-transition-list, or obs-get-transition-settings, nor any note that this reports only a per-scene override rather than the active transition. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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