obs-get-special-inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how data is returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words: 'Gets the names of all special inputs'. It is front-loaded and directly conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., return format, permissions) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. For a simple read operation, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in usage and 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no parameters are required. A baseline of 3 is set for high schema coverage, but the description's clarity about 'all special inputs' slightly enhances understanding, justifying a score of 4.

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 names of all special inputs' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('names of all special inputs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-list' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list', which might also retrieve input-related information, so it falls short of 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. With many sibling tools related to inputs (e.g., 'obs-get-input-list', 'obs-get-input-kind-list'), there is no indication of what makes 'special inputs' distinct or when this tool is preferred over others, leaving usage unclear.

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