List inputs

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real output behavior: settings come back with OBS defaults filled in, and secret fields are redacted — non-obvious traits an agent should know before calling.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary scope front-loaded and the optional behavior and redaction caveat trailing. No filler, every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so in part (kind, settings with defaults, redacted secrets). It is nearly complete for a 2-param read tool, missing only an explicit note on the kind filter and return shape/pagination.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'kind' is documented in the schema while 'includeSettings' has just a default and no description. The description compensates for includeSettings ('optionally their settings with OBS defaults filled in') but never clarifies that 'kind' acts as a filter rather than merely echoing each input's kind, leaving that parameter ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('All inputs (sources) with their kind') and even maps the domain term 'inputs' to 'sources', which helps disambiguate from list_scenes/list_filters. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_input_settings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally their settings' implies when to set includeSettings, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this bulk list versus get_input_settings for a single input, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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