obs-get-source-filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if source/filter doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or what the output format might be. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's arguably too concise, lacking necessary details for a tool with no annotations or output schema, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite efficient structure.

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 complexity (a read operation with two required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'info' includes, potential errors, or return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively in this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('sourceName' and 'filterName'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Gets the info for a specific source filter' clearly states the action (gets) and target (source filter info), but it's vague about what 'info' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-get-source-filter-list' (which lists filters) by specifying a single filter, but doesn't clarify what type of information is retrieved compared to other get tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing source and filter), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'obs-get-filter-default-settings' or 'obs-get-source-filter-list', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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