obs-open-source-projector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Opens') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., closes other projectors), latency, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with potential side effects and no structured safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while stating the core action clearly.

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 tool that likely opens a display/output with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what 'Opens' entails (e.g., window creation, stream activation). For a 4-parameter tool with potential operational impact, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (sourceName, sourceUuid, monitorIndex, projectorGeometry) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Opens a projector for a source' states a clear action ('Opens') and resource ('projector for a source'), but it's vague about what a 'projector' entails in this context (e.g., a display window, output stream). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'obs-open-video-mix-projector' or 'obs-open-input-properties', leaving ambiguity about the specific type of projector.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing source), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'obs-open-video-mix-projector', which could handle different projector types. Usage is implied only by the action described.

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