OBS MCP Server

by royshil

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap in get/set operations for similar properties (e.g., multiple audio-related get/set tools for inputs) that could cause minor confusion. However, the descriptions are clear enough to differentiate them in most cases.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'obs-verb-noun' pattern with clear, descriptive names. The naming is uniform throughout, making it easy to predict tool functions and maintain readability.
Tool Count2/5
With 127 tools, the count is excessively high for a single server, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. This suggests poor scoping, as many tools could potentially be consolidated or grouped more efficiently.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of OBS operations, including CRUD for inputs, scenes, filters, and outputs, as well as status checks, controls, and utilities. No obvious gaps are present for the domain.
Average 3/5 across 127 of 127 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under GPL 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what 'starting an output' entails—whether it's a mutating operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., interrupting other outputs), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical details and fails to earn its place by providing actionable information, making it ineffective despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of OBS operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'output' is, what starting it does, potential outcomes, or how it interacts with the system, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'outputName' documented as 'Output name' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about this parameter (e.g., what constitutes a valid output name, where to find available outputs). Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Starts an output' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'obs-start-output' without adding meaningful context. It lacks specificity about what an 'output' refers to in the OBS context (e.g., streaming, recording, virtual camera) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-start-stream' or 'obs-start-record'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an output must be configured first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'obs-stop-output' or 'obs-toggle-output', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers zero behavioral disclosure. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens if recording is already active, or what side effects occur. The single phrase provides no useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) but suffers from under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single phrase fails to earn its place by providing insufficient value beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of OBS recording operations and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'starting record output' entails, what success/failure looks like, or how this interacts with the broader OBS ecosystem. For a tool that presumably initiates a critical recording function, this minimal description leaves too many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making a baseline score of 4 appropriate since no parameter information is required beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Starts the record output' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obs-start-record' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'record output' means in the OBS context or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'obs-start-stream' or 'obs-start-virtual-cam' that also initiate outputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether recording must be configured first), conditions for use, or relationships to sibling tools like 'obs-stop-record', 'obs-pause-record', or 'obs-toggle-record'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the output doesn't exist, whether settings are validated, or if changes are immediate/permanent. It also doesn't mention error conditions or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks the substance needed for a mutation tool. While structurally minimal, it doesn't achieve the ideal balance of conciseness and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'output settings' encompass, how to determine valid settings, what the tool returns, or error handling. With 2 parameters (including a nested object) and behavioral complexity from being a setter, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('outputName' and 'outputSettings') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the settings of an output' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'obs-set-output-settings' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'sets' and resource 'output', but fails to distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'obs-set-input-settings' or 'obs-set-stream-service-settings' beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation from related configuration tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing output), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-settings' (for retrieval) or 'obs-start-output'/'obs-stop-output' (for control). Without any usage context, an agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether changes are persistent, error conditions, or side effects. The term 'Sets' implies mutation, but critical context like rate limits or confirmation of success is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of filterSettings or typical use cases for the overlay parameter. Baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the settings of a source filter' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Sets' and resource 'settings of a source filter', but lacks detail on what settings are involved or how it differs from siblings like 'obs-set-source-filter-enabled' or 'obs-set-source-filter-name'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing source and filter, or compare it to related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter' for retrieving settings or 'obs-create-source-filter' for initial setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Stops an output' implies a state-changing action, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens to the output (e.g., if it's paused or terminated), or any side effects like error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Stops an output,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it lacks detail, it efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'output' means in the OBS ecosystem, how stopping affects system state, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity implied by numerous sibling tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'outputName' documented as 'Output name' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about this parameter, such as what constitutes a valid output name or how to obtain it. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stops an output' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'obs-stop-output' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what an 'output' refers to in the OBS context (e.g., streaming, recording, virtual camera) or what stopping entails. While the verb 'stops' is clear, the resource 'output' remains vague without distinguishing it from similar tools like obs-stop-stream or obs-stop-record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like obs-stop-stream, obs-stop-record, obs-stop-replay-buffer, and obs-stop-virtual-cam, the description doesn't indicate which specific output type this tool targets or under what conditions it should be invoked. This lack of differentiation leaves usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Call a request' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what side effects occur (e.g., changes in OBS state), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is front-loaded but overly terse, lacking necessary context that could justify additional sentences for clarity. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is incomplete for effective use. The agent lacks information on behavior, return values, and how it fits among many sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool with potential side effects, the description should provide more context on purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 parameters ('vendorName', 'requestType', 'requestData'). The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as examples of vendor names or request types, or how 'requestData' should be structured. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Call a request registered to a vendor' states a verb ('Call') and resource ('request registered to a vendor'), but is vague about what 'call' means in this context (e.g., execute, invoke, trigger) and what a 'vendor request' entails. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'obs-broadcast-custom-event' or 'obs-trigger-media-input-action', which might involve similar triggering actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools for triggering actions (e.g., 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name', 'obs-trigger-media-input-action'), the description lacks context on its specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'offsets' a cursor position, implying a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or queued, what happens on invalid offsets, or error conditions. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Offsets'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as hinting at relative vs. absolute positioning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description lacks the depth needed for a tool that modifies system state in a media context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('inputName' and 'mediaCursorOffset') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, valid ranges for the offset, or examples of usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Offsets the current cursor position of a media input' clearly states the action (offsets) and target (cursor position of a media input), but it's somewhat vague about what 'offsets' means in practical terms. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' (which sets absolute position) or 'obs-get-media-input-status' (which reads status), leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific offset tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' (sets absolute position) and 'obs-get-media-input-status' (reads status), there's no indication whether this is for relative adjustments, what contexts require offsetting versus setting, or any prerequisites. This lack of differentiation makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks context about what 'sets' entails operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after settings are applied, potential return values, or error handling. Given the complexity implied by inputSettings being an object, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (inputName, inputSettings, overlay). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of inputSettings or clarification on overlay behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the settings of an input' states the basic action (sets) and target (settings of an input), but it's vague about what 'settings' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like obs-set-input-audio-balance or obs-set-input-volume. It lacks specificity about what types of settings can be configured.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., input must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like obs-get-input-settings for retrieval or other obs-set-input-* tools for specific settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool triggers a hotkey, implying a write/mutation action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it changes OBS state), error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs an action in OBS.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 performs an action in OBS), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'triggers' means in practice, potential impacts, or what to expect upon success/failure. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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: 'hotkeyName' (required) and 'contextName' (optional). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Triggers a hotkey using its name' clearly states the action (triggers) and resource (hotkey), but it's somewhat vague about what 'triggers' entails—does it simulate a key press, activate a function, or something else? It distinguishes from sibling 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence' by specifying 'by name' vs 'by key sequence', but the purpose could be more specific about the effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for hotkeys identified by name, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., hotkey must exist), exclusions, or compare to other triggering methods like 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence'. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'triggers an action,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether actions are reversible, error conditions, or effects on OBS state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, earning a 4 for brevity without being overly sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly in a real-world OBS scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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: 'inputName' and 'mediaAction' (including an enum list). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Triggers an action on a media input' states a general purpose with a verb ('triggers') and resource ('media input'), but it's vague about what specific actions are available or what 'media input' entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' or 'obs-get-media-input-status', which also involve media inputs but with different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing media input, or contrast with tools like 'obs-set-media-input-cursor' for cursor control or 'obs-get-media-input-status' for status checks. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns a numeric offset value, or has any side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for clarity in a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audio sync offset represents (e.g., milliseconds adjustment), the return format, or any error conditions. For a tool that retrieves a specific technical property, more context is needed to ensure proper usage without relying on external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'inputName' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the audio sync offset of an input' clearly states the action (get) and resource (audio sync offset of an input), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-get-input-audio-balance' or 'obs-get-input-audio-monitor-type', which also retrieve audio-related input properties, making it somewhat vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for troubleshooting audio sync issues or how it relates to 'obs-set-input-audio-sync-offset' for adjustments. The description alone offers no context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the input doesn't exist), rate limits, or the format of returned settings. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Gets'), making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource ('settings of an input'), though it could be more detailed, the brevity is appropriate for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'settings' include (e.g., JSON object with properties), potential return values, or error cases. For a tool that retrieves configuration data, more context is needed to ensure proper use without relying on external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'inputName' documented as 'Name of the input to get the settings of'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid input names or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the settings of an input' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('settings of an input'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'settings' entail (e.g., configuration parameters, properties) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-get-input-default-settings' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list', which also retrieve input-related information but for different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing input name), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'obs-get-input-default-settings' (for default vs. current settings) or 'obs-get-input-list' (for listing inputs). Without such context, usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'status' includes (e.g., active/inactive, error states, performance metrics), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Gets the status of an output'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of OBS tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails, potential return values, or error conditions. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'outputName' clearly documented as 'Output name'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on valid output names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the status of an output' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('status of an output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-list' or 'obs-get-output-settings', which also retrieve output-related information but for different aspects. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether the output must be active or if it works for all output types. With many sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-list' and 'obs-get-output-settings', the lack of comparative guidance leaves usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions opening a dialog but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires user interaction, if it's read-only or mutative, what happens if the input doesn't exist, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's context is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'interact dialog' does, its effects, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full scope of this operation among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'inputName' and 'inputUuid' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying if both parameters are required or how they interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Opens the interact dialog of an input' clearly states the action (opens) and target (interact dialog of an input), but it's somewhat vague about what 'interact dialog' entails and doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'obs-open-input-filters' or 'obs-open-input-properties'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the dialog's function or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools for opening dialogs or managing inputs (e.g., 'obs-open-input-filters'), the description doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'sets' volume, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid input name), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the volume units.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output expectations. The schema compensates for parameter documentation, but overall completeness is limited, leaving gaps for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all parameters (inputName, inputVolumeMul, inputVolumeDb), including their types, ranges, and purposes. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between mul and dB units or which parameter to prioritize. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the volume setting of an input' clearly states the action (sets) and target (volume setting of an input), but it's vague about what 'volume setting' entails (e.g., audio level adjustment) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-mute' or 'obs-set-input-audio-balance'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity and sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., input must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot set both volume parameters simultaneously), or compare to related tools like 'obs-get-input-volume' for retrieval. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Sets the current stream service settings', implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on active streams), error conditions, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a write tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stream service settings' are, potential impacts, or return values, leaving critical behavioral and contextual gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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: 'streamServiceType' and 'streamServiceSettings'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of settings or service types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the current stream service settings' clearly states the action (sets) and target (stream service settings), but it's vague about what 'stream service settings' entail and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-set-output-settings' or 'obs-get-stream-service-settings'. It's a basic verb+resource statement without specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., before streaming), or sibling tools like 'obs-get-stream-service-settings' for retrieval. Usage is implied from the action 'sets', but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool performs an enable/disable action, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects (e.g., how it affects live streams or recordings), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation in OBS), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like effects on OBS state, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'studioModeEnabled' clearly documented as a boolean for enabling/disabling. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of enabling/disabling or provide examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enables or disables studio mode' clearly states the action (enables/disables) and target (studio mode), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'studio mode' refers to in the OBS context (e.g., a preview/program switching feature for live production) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-studio-mode' or 'obs-trigger-studio-transition', which are related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., OBS must be running, studio mode must be available), exclusions (e.g., cannot use during certain states), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'obs-get-studio-mode' (for checking status) or 'obs-trigger-studio-transition' (for executing transitions within studio mode). The description implies usage only through the action verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Set'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'settings' entail, how to determine valid values, what happens on success/failure, or how it interacts with other OBS state. More detail is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'transitionSettings' documented as 'The settings to apply to the transition'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of settings or format details. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Set') and target ('settings of the current transition'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what kind of settings or what 'current transition' means in the OBS context, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'obs-set-transition-duration' or 'obs-set-current-transition'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a transition to be set as current first), exclusions, or how it differs from other transition-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Sets' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, require specific permissions, affect ongoing streams/recordings, or have validation constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current video settings' entail, how changes propagate, or what happens on success/failure. For a setter tool in OBS, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., fpsNumerator, baseWidth). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'video settings', so it doesn't enhance semantics. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets the current video settings' clearly states the action (sets) and target (video settings), but it's vague about what specific settings are involved. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'obs-set-current-scene' or 'obs-set-stream-service-settings' beyond the 'video' qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or sibling tools like 'obs-get-video-settings' for retrieval. It's a basic statement with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'toggle,' implying a mutation that changes state, but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what the default state is, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., if toggling affects streaming or recording). It lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or response format, making it insufficient for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'toggles' entails (e.g., switches between on/off), what happens after toggling, or potential errors. Given the complexity of state changes in OBS and lack of structured data, more context is needed for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'outputName' documented as 'Output name' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as valid names or examples. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggles the status of an output' clearly states the action (toggle) and resource (output), but it's vague about what 'status' means (e.g., on/off, enabled/disabled) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like obs-start-output or obs-stop-output, which also affect output states. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obs-start-output or obs-stop-output, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an output to exist. The description implies usage for toggling but offers no context for decision-making, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it 'Gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'default settings' entail (e.g., are they editable templates?). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, errors) and return values. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'filterKind' documented as 'Filter kind to get the default settings for'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples of filter kinds or how to obtain them. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the default settings for a filter kind' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('default settings for a filter kind'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-default-settings' or 'obs-get-filter-kind-list', which could cause confusion about scope. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a filter must exist), when-not scenarios, or refer to related tools like 'obs-get-filter-kind-list' for available filter kinds. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Gets', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns real-time or cached data, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but given the simplicity, it's efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' includes (e.g., boolean, object, error states) or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully. More detail on the return value or usage context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter info is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets the status of the record output' states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('record output'), but it's vague about what 'status' entails (e.g., recording state, file info, errors). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-get-record-directory' by focusing on status rather than location, but lacks specificity on the status type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention if it's for checking if recording is active, paused, or stopped, or how it relates to tools like 'obs-get-record-directory' or 'obs-get-output-status'. The description implies usage for record output status but offers no exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Resumes the record output', implying a mutation that resumes recording, but doesn't cover critical aspects like side effects (e.g., if recording isn't paused), permissions, error conditions, or what happens if invoked incorrectly. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by clarifying 'record output' in the context of OBS, but it's still well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and potential outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use. Without annotations or output schema, more descriptive content is needed to cover operational nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps—though none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resumes the record output' specifies the action (resumes) and target (record output), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's somewhat vague—'record output' could refer to recording in OBS, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'obs-start-record' or 'obs-toggle-record-pause', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given siblings like 'obs-pause-record', 'obs-toggle-record-pause', and 'obs-start-record', the description lacks context for selection, such as prerequisites (e.g., recording must be paused) or timing, which could lead to misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects (e.g., starting a live broadcast), error conditions, or rate limits. It's 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context, but it's efficient as is.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'start streaming' means operationally, potential outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is acceptable here, but it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start streaming in OBS' clearly states the action (start streaming) and resource (OBS), but it's vague about what 'streaming' entails compared to siblings like 'obs-start-output' or 'obs-start-record'. It distinguishes from 'obs-stop-stream' but not from other start actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-start-output' or 'obs-toggle-stream', nor prerequisites such as needing OBS configured for streaming. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Toggles' implies a state-changing operation, but the description doesn't specify what the toggle does (e.g., start/stop recording, enable/disable output), what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or what happens to existing recording sessions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core function, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Toggles recording on/off' might be clearer). There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of OBS recording operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'record output' means, how the toggle behaves, what the expected outcome is, or how it differs from other recording tools. For a tool that likely controls a critical function like recording, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. However, it doesn't add any semantic context about implicit parameters or side effects, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggles the status of the record output' clearly indicates the action (toggle) and resource (record output), but it's vague about what 'record output' specifically refers to in the OBS context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'obs-toggle-record-pause', 'obs-start-record', or 'obs-stop-record', leaving ambiguity about its exact function compared to similar recording-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 recording (e.g., obs-start-record, obs-stop-record, obs-toggle-record-pause), there's no indication of whether this tool starts/stops recording, pauses/resumes it, or toggles some other recording status. The lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'broadcasts' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what happens if no clients are connected. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the event data should be in, what happens after broadcasting, whether there's confirmation of delivery, or error conditions. The context signals indicate complexity (nested objects) that isn't addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'eventData' well-described in the schema as 'Data payload to emit to all receivers'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Broadcasts') and target ('CustomEvent to all WebSocket clients'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as this appears to be the only event broadcasting tool in the list, so sibling differentiation isn't applicable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, error conditions, or what happens if the input already exists. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (like error handling or side effects), usage context relative to siblings, or return values. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone, which is insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'inputKind' values are valid or how 'inputSettings' should be structured). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('creates a new input') and the resource ('adding it as a scene item to the specified scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene-item' or 'obs-create-source-filter', which might create ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'obs-create-scene-item', 'obs-create-source-filter'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions from related creation tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool 'creates' and 'switching', implying mutation and side effects, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the profile name already exists, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Creates a new profile') and adds a secondary effect ('switching to it in the process'). There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain error conditions, success responses, or behavioral nuances like whether the switch is immediate or requires a restart. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'profileName' documented as 'Name for the new profile'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format constraints, uniqueness requirements, or character limits). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new profile'), and specifies an additional effect ('switching to it in the process'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-set-current-profile' (which switches without creating) and 'obs-remove-profile' (which deletes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all creation tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-input', keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a profile name must be unique), when not to use it (e.g., if a profile already exists), or refer to sibling tools like 'obs-set-current-profile' for switching without creation. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permissions needed, whether scenes are immediately available for use, what happens if a scene with the same name exists, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., whether the scene becomes active, what gets returned, or error conditions). Given the complexity of OBS scene management and the lack of structured behavioral information, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sceneName' fully documented in the schema as 'The name for the new scene'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new scene in OBS' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('scene in OBS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene-collection' or 'obs-create-scene-item', which also create OBS resources but different types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 available (like 'obs-create-scene-collection' for collections or 'obs-create-scene-item' for items within scenes), there's no indication of when scene creation is appropriate versus other creation operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool creates and switches to a new scene collection, implying a mutation operation, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on current scenes), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Creates a new scene collection') and adds a useful behavioral note ('switching to it in the process'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover important aspects like what happens on failure, whether the switch is immediate, or what the return value might be. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sceneCollectionName' clearly documented as 'Name for the new scene collection'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as naming constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('creates a new scene collection') and specifies the resource ('scene collection'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-profile', which also create resources but of different types, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that it switches to the new scene collection, which provides some context for usage, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-set-current-scene-collection' or other creation tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, limiting its helpfulness in decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implying a write operation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects (e.g., whether this affects live streaming), error conditions, or what happens if the scene/source doesn't exist. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'scene item' is in OBS context, what the creation entails (e.g., positioning, default settings), or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of OBS operations and lack of structured behavioral hints, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (sceneName, sourceName, enabled). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a scene item') and target ('for a source in a scene'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-input', which create different OBS entities, leaving some room for confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing scenes/sources), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-remove-scene-item' or 'obs-set-scene-item-enabled', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool creates a filter but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify if this requires special permissions, what happens if the filter name already exists, whether the creation is reversible, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters, including a nested object) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address error conditions, return values, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain what 'filterKind' entails or provide examples for 'filterSettings'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates a new filter') and target resource ('adding it to the specified source'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'obs-create-scene' or 'obs-create-input', which follow similar creation patterns but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the source must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-remove-source-filter' or 'obs-set-source-filter-settings' for managing filters after creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric balance value). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audio balance value represents (e.g., range, units), potential errors, or how it differs from other audio-related get tools. For a tool in a complex OBS ecosystem, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'inputName' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('gets') and resource ('audio balance of an input'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-volume' or 'obs-get-input-audio-sync-offset', which also retrieve audio properties of inputs, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Gets') but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format might be, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the key information without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'default settings' entail, the format of the return value, or how this tool fits into broader workflows with siblings. For a tool in a complex OBS ecosystem, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputKind' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('default settings for an input kind'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-settings' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list', which reduces clarity in distinguishing exact use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'obs-get-input-settings' or 'obs-get-input-kind-list'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves an array without detailing behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or output format. It fails to disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or how errors are handled, which are critical 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves data. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the optional 'inputKind' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying retrieval of inputs, which aligns with the schema but does not enhance understanding. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('array of all inputs in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-kind-list' or 'obs-get-input-settings', which reduces clarity in distinguishing exact use cases among similar retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as filtering inputs by kind or accessing specific input details. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage decisions ambiguous for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover error handling (e.g., what happens if the input doesn't exist), performance aspects, or the return format (e.g., volume level as a number). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation), the description is minimal but lacks completeness. Without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't explain what the volume value represents (e.g., decibels, percentage), potential errors, or how it fits into the broader OBS ecosystem. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'inputName' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of input names or constraints). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('current volume setting of an input'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-audio-balance' or 'obs-get-input-mute', which also retrieve input properties, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the input must exist or be active), compare it to other volume-related tools like 'obs-set-input-volume', or specify contexts where it's appropriate. This lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it 'Gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like what data is returned, error conditions, or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'status' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more detail to compensate, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'inputName' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('status of a media input'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-list' or 'obs-get-input-settings', which reduces the score from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other 'obs-get-*' tools for media inputs. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Gets'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the settings are returned in, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'settings' include, the return format, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., 'obs-set-output-settings' for mutation), more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'outputName' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of output names or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('settings of an output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-list' or 'obs-get-output-status', which also retrieve output-related information but for different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'obs-get-output-list' (lists outputs) and 'obs-get-output-status' (gets status), the description lacks context for choosing this specific 'settings' retrieval tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the slot doesn't exist (e.g., returns null or error), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned value looks like (e.g., data type, structure), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a data retrieval tool with 2 parameters, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('realm' and 'slotName'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'slot' or 'realm' represents in OBS context), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets the value') and resource ('a slot from the selected persistent data realm'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-persistent-data' or other 'get-' tools, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific realm or slot to exist), exclusions, or comparisons to other data retrieval tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned list. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of scene items. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., item names, types, IDs) or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'sceneName' clearly documented. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('all scene items in a scene'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-list' or 'obs-get-scene-item-id', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other 'obs-get-*' tools for scene-related data. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions (e.g., invalid scene name or item ID), performance characteristics, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving transform data (which could involve multiple numeric values) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., coordinates, angles, scale factors) or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'sceneName' and 'sceneItemId'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'position, rotation, scale, or crop of a scene item', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-item-id' or 'obs-get-scene-items', which also retrieve scene item information but for different attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'obs-get-scene-items' (which might list items) or 'obs-set-scene-item-transform' (which modifies transforms). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets' a screenshot, implying a read-only operation, but does not address critical aspects like permissions needed, performance impact (e.g., if it pauses OBS), error handling, or return format details beyond 'Base64-encoded'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Gets a Base64-encoded screenshot of a source') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, output specifics (e.g., structure of the Base64 data), and error scenarios. For a tool that interacts with OBS sources, more context is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a screenshot is taken, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('Base64-encoded screenshot of a source'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-save-source-screenshot' or other screenshot-related tools, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'obs-save-source-screenshot' or other screenshot methods in the sibling list. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or specific use cases, offering only basic functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only or mutating operation, what the dialog does (e.g., modal vs. non-modal), or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with user interfaces.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that opens a dialog (implying potential user interaction or side effects), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the filters dialog is, how it behaves, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('inputName' and 'inputUuid') with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Opens') and the target ('filters dialog of an input'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-open-input-properties' or 'obs-open-input-interact', which also open dialogs for inputs but for different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for opening filters, or what happens after the dialog opens. It lacks any comparison to similar tools like 'obs-open-input-properties'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description lacks behavioral details. It doesn't specify if this action is read-only or mutating (e.g., might allow editing properties), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens upon opening (e.g., a UI dialog appears). The description only states the basic action without disclosing important traits like side effects or user interaction requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action ('Opens') and target, which is efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'opening a properties dialog' entails (e.g., is it a UI action, does it return data?), behavioral implications, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely involves user interaction, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('inputName' and 'inputUuid'). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter relationships (e.g., use one or both) or constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Opens') and target ('properties dialog of an input'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-open-input-filters' or 'obs-open-input-interact' that also open dialogs for inputs, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the input must exist or be active), nor does it compare to similar tools like 'obs-get-input-settings' that might retrieve properties without opening a dialog, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool opens a projector but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., whether it creates a new window, requires specific permissions, affects system resources, or has side effects). For a tool with potential visual or system impact, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves system-level actions (opening projectors), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a 'video mix' context, which is already covered by the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Opens a projector') and the target ('for a specific output video mix'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-open-source-projector' or 'obs-open-input-properties', which also open projectors but for different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other projector-opening tools in the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation (pausing) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the recording file, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, return values, and how it fits with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pauses the record output' clearly states the action (pauses) and target (record output), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'record output' means in the OBS context (e.g., recording to file) or distinguish it from similar tools like 'obs-toggle-record-pause' or 'obs-stop-record', making it somewhat vague compared to siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-resume-record', 'obs-stop-record', or 'obs-toggle-record-pause'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be recording first) or typical scenarios, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not specify consequences (e.g., if removal is permanent, affects associated scenes/filters, or requires specific permissions). It also omits details like error handling or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for brevity and clarity in tool descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral effects (e.g., what happens after removal), error conditions, or usage prerequisites. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall tool understanding remains insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'inputName' clearly documented as 'Name of the input to remove'. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Removes an existing input' clearly states the action (removes) and resource (input), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like obs-remove-scene or obs-remove-scene-item, which also remove resources but different types. This prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., input must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove active inputs), or related tools like obs-get-input-list for verification. This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to apply it correctly without trial and error.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated scene items, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and resource, adhering perfectly to best practices for conciseness without sacrificing clarity in this minimal form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use. This is inadequate for a mutation tool in a system like OBS.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'sceneName' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a scene from OBS'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-remove-input' or 'obs-remove-scene-item' by specifying 'scene' as the target. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader deletion tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as when to remove a scene versus modifying it or handling dependencies. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., if the scene must exist or be unused) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other scene elements. It lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or what happens if the scene/item doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'removal' entails (deletion, hiding, archiving), what the tool returns (success confirmation, error details), or how it interacts with the OBS ecosystem. The context signals show this is a simple 2-parameter tool, but the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('sceneName', 'sceneItemId') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides about these parameters, such as format examples or relationship between them. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a scene item from a scene'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-remove-scene' or 'obs-remove-input', which also perform removal operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene item), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-items' (to identify items) or 'obs-create-scene-item' (to add items).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'removes' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., if the filter doesn't exist), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, success indicators, or interactions with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation in a complex OBS environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('sourceName' and 'filterName'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('removes') and the target ('a filter from a source'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-remove-input' or 'obs-remove-scene-item', which also perform removal operations on different OBS entities, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the filter must exist), related tools like 'obs-create-source-filter' for adding filters, or sibling removal tools for other OBS components, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending caption text but does not cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects stream status, potential rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely interacts with a live stream. It does not explain what happens after sending the caption, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'captionText' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sends') and the resource ('CEA-608 caption text over the stream output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-broadcast-custom-event' or 'obs-trigger-media-input-action', which might also involve stream output interactions, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other caption-related tools or stream control tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('switches') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting current OBS setup), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simple function, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (switching profiles), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like behavioral implications, error handling, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'obs-get-profile-list'), leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'profileName' documented as 'Name of the profile to switch to'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Switches to a profile' clearly states the action (switches) and target resource (profile), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-current-scene' or 'obs-set-current-scene-collection' that perform similar switching operations on different resources, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing profiles from 'obs-get-profile-list'), exclusions, or comparisons to other switching tools in the sibling list, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets the active scene, implying a mutation, but does not cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether the change is immediate or reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid scene name), or impact on ongoing streams/recordings. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for clarity and quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of OBS operations and the absence of structured data to compensate, the description does not provide enough information for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'sceneName' clearly documented as 'The name of the scene to set as current'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('current active scene in OBS'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-preview-scene' or 'obs-set-current-scene-collection', which involve similar setting operations but for different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'obs-set-preview-scene' for preview mode or 'obs-set-current-scene-collection' for collections. It also omits prerequisites like needing the scene to exist or being in a specific OBS state, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('switches to') but doesn't describe effects like whether this change is immediate, requires OBS Studio to be running, affects current scenes, or has any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, prerequisites), usage context, and what happens upon success or failure. The high schema coverage for parameters is insufficient to compensate for these gaps in a tool that changes system state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sceneCollectionName' fully documented in the schema as 'Name of the scene collection to switch to'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('switches to') and resource ('scene collection'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-current-scene' or 'obs-set-current-profile', which have similar switching patterns but target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 scene collection from 'obs-get-scene-collection-list'), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'obs-create-scene-collection' for creating new collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool performs a 'Set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific OBS states (e.g., studio mode), if changes are immediate or reversible, or any error conditions (e.g., invalid transition name). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success indicators, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in OBS workflows. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'transitionName' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid transition names or where to obtain them. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target resource ('current transition in OBS'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-transition-duration' or 'obs-set-transition-settings', which also modify transitions but in different ways, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing transition name from 'obs-get-transition-list' or clarify that this sets the active transition for future scene changes, unlike 'obs-trigger-transition' which immediately applies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require a refresh, what happens to existing audio settings, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded, immediately conveying the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the balance (e.g., confirmation response, error handling), doesn't mention prerequisites like needing the input to exist, and provides no context about how this interacts with other audio settings. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (inputName and inputAudioBalance with range 0.0-1.0). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the resource ('audio balance of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-volume' or 'obs-set-input-mute', which are similar configuration tools for OBS inputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that modify input properties (e.g., 'obs-set-input-volume', 'obs-set-input-mute'), there's no indication of when audio balance adjustment is appropriate versus other audio controls.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are immediate or require a restart, what happens if the input doesn't exist, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple setter tool and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the monitor type, what the valid monitor types mean in practice, or any side effects. Given the complexity of audio monitoring in OBS and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the target resource ('audio monitor type of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-audio-balance' or 'obs-set-input-audio-sync-offset' beyond the specific property being set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what effects it might have on the OBS system. It's a bare statement of function with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Sets' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or require a refresh, what happens with invalid input names, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the offset (success/failure indicators), whether the change persists, or what side effects might occur. With 2 required parameters and a write operation, more context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (input name and offset value in milliseconds). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the resource ('audio sync offset of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-set-input-audio-balance' or 'obs-set-input-volume' that also modify input audio properties, which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that modify input properties (e.g., 'obs-set-input-audio-balance', 'obs-set-input-mute'), there's no indication of when audio sync offset adjustment is appropriate versus other audio modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are immediate or reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid input names), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about what 'Sets' entails operationally, how it interacts with other OBS tools, or what happens on success/failure. Given the complexity of audio state management and sibling tools, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (inputName and inputMuted). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid input names or muting behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and target ('audio mute state of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-toggle-input-mute' or 'obs-get-input-mute', which handle similar functionality differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-toggle-input-mute' (which toggles rather than sets) or 'obs-get-input-mute' (which retrieves the state). The description offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Sets'), implying it modifies state, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if the rename affects other references), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Sets the name of an input (rename)'), using only one brief phrase. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying parenthetical, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. Given the complexity of modifying system state in OBS, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Current input name', 'New name for the input'). The description adds minimal value by implying the rename action but doesn't elaborate on parameter constraints or usage beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets the name of an input') and specifies it's a rename operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obs-create-input' (creation) and 'obs-remove-input' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'obs-set-input-*' tools that modify different input properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., the input must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-get-input-list' for verification. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'set' action, implying mutation, but doesn't mention side effects like whether it affects playback, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what happens after setting the cursor (e.g., does playback resume?). Given the complexity of media control, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('inputName' and 'mediaCursor') with their types and constraints. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the target ('cursor position of a media input'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-offset-media-input-cursor' or 'obs-get-media-input-status', which handle related media input operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the media input must be active or paused, or how it differs from offsetting the cursor. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Sets' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this requires special permissions, if changes are permanent or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Sets'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of modifying persistent data in OBS, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'realm' (specifying allowed values) and 'slotName'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a 'slot' represents or constraints on 'slotValue'. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and target ('value of a slot from the selected persistent data realm'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'obs-get-persistent-data' beyond the verb, missing explicit contrast like 'use this to write data vs. obs-get-persistent-data to read data'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 specific permissions), compare to sibling tools like 'obs-get-persistent-data' for reading data, or specify scenarios where setting persistent data is appropriate (e.g., configuration storage).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Sets the value' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are persistent, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a configuration mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context (e.g., what 'current profile' means, how changes affect the system), error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (parameterCategory, parameterName, parameterValue) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and target ('value of a parameter in the current profile's configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'obs-set-current-profile' or 'obs-set-persistent-data', which also modify configuration elements, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that modify settings (e.g., 'obs-set-input-settings', 'obs-set-output-settings'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Sets'), but fails to specify permissions required, whether changes are persistent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'recordDirectory' documented as 'Output directory'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the target ('current directory that the record output writes files to'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-record-directory' or 'obs-set-current-profile', which handle related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'obs-get-record-directory' for retrieving the current directory or other 'obs-set-' tools for different settings. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, offering only basic functional information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('show or hide') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting overlays or recordings), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error handling. For a tool that modifies scene state in a production environment like OBS, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how to obtain sceneItemId or validate sceneName). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show or hide a scene item' clearly states the verb ('show or hide') and resource ('scene item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'obs-set-source-filter-enabled' or 'obs-remove-scene-item', but the specific focus on scene item visibility is reasonably distinct within the OBS context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene item), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'obs-get-scene-items' for checking current state or 'obs-remove-scene-item' for deletion. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Set'), but does not specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified transform properties (e.g., are they reset or preserved), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 11 parameters clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'sceneName', 'positionX', 'rotation'). The description adds minimal value by listing the transform aspects (position, rotation, scale, crop) but does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target ('position, rotation, scale, or crop of a scene item'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-item-transform' (which retrieves the transform) or 'obs-set-scene-item-enabled' (which toggles visibility), leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its specific role among similar mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene item), compare it to other transform-related tools like 'obs-get-scene-item-transform', or indicate scenarios where it is appropriate (e.g., adjusting layout vs. enabling/disabling). This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies OBS state, this lack of behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the filter is enabled/disabled, whether there's confirmation feedback, or potential error scenarios. For a tool that changes OBS configuration state, more behavioral context is needed despite the concise description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between sourceName and filterName, or what filterEnabled=true/false means operationally). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the target ('enable state of a source filter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-create-source-filter' or 'obs-remove-source-filter' by focusing on enabling/disabling rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a 'source filter' is in the OBS context, which could help differentiate further from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing source and filter), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter' for checking current state. Without this context, an agent might struggle to determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 a mutation action ('Sets'), implying changes to OBS state, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the change is immediate or reversible, error conditions (e.g., if index is out of bounds), or side effects (e.g., reordering other filters). For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (changing filter order in OBS) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, success indicators, or interactions with other tools (e.g., 'obs-get-source-filter-list'). For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (sourceName, filterName, filterIndex). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints like filterIndex being zero-based. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the target ('index position of a filter on a source'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-set-source-filter-enabled' or 'obs-set-source-filter-name' by focusing on index positioning rather than enabling, naming, or settings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'obs-set-scene-item-transform' which also involves positioning, though in a different context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the source and filter must exist), exclusions (e.g., invalid indices), or related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter-list' for checking current indices. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook necessary steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Sets'), suggesting it modifies state, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., if the filter doesn't exist), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, idempotency), expected outcomes, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of OBS operations, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying renaming, which is already clear from parameter names. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets the name') and resource ('source filter'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-create-source-filter' (creation) and 'obs-remove-source-filter' (deletion) by focusing on renaming. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'obs-set-input-name' (which renames inputs, not filters), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., the filter must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'obs-get-source-filter-list' for verification. The description alone offers no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, affects ongoing transitions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral implications (e.g., whether changes are immediate, reversible, or have constraints), expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'duration' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is for the 'current transition', which is already clear from the tool name and schema context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and target ('duration of the current transition'), specifying the unit ('milliseconds'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-get-transition-duration' by indicating a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other set tools like 'obs-set-transition-settings' beyond the specific property being set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 active transition), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'obs-set-transition-settings' for broader transition modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('starts') but doesn't explain what starting the replay buffer entails (e.g., begins recording recent gameplay/video to memory for later saving), potential side effects (e.g., may require specific OBS settings), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a replay buffer (a state-changing operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'starts' means operationally, success/failure conditions, interactions with other OBS components, or what happens if the buffer is already active. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Starts the replay buffer output' clearly states the action (starts) and target (replay buffer output), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'obs-toggle-replay-buffer' or 'obs-save-replay-buffer', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific start command versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the replay buffer must be configured first), exclusions (e.g., if it fails when already running), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'obs-toggle-replay-buffer' for toggling or 'obs-stop-replay-buffer' for stopping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('starts') but doesn't explain what 'virtualcam output' entails, whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (e.g., no effect if already running), or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a virtual camera (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, error conditions, or what success looks like. For a tool that likely interacts with system resources, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Starts the virtualcam output' clearly states the action (starts) and target (virtualcam output), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-stop-virtual-cam' or 'obs-toggle-virtual-cam' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, making it somewhat vague about its unique role in the OBS ecosystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., virtual camera setup), when not to use it (e.g., if already running), or explicit alternatives like 'obs-toggle-virtual-cam' for toggling state. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('stops') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as stopping recording finalizes the file), if it requires specific permissions, or what happens if recording isn't active. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence ('Stops the record output') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation to stop recording), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'record output' means, the effects of stopping (e.g., file saving, status changes), or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stops the record output' clearly states the action (stop) and target (record output), but it's somewhat vague about what 'record output' entails compared to siblings like 'obs-stop-stream' or 'obs-stop-output'. It distinguishes from 'obs-pause-record' by implying termination rather than pausing, but lacks specificity about the recording context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-toggle-record' or 'obs-pause-record' is provided. The description implies it should be used to stop recording, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., recording must be active) or contrast with similar tools, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool toggles mute, implying a mutation that changes state, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the input doesn't exist, if it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the core action and resource, which is ideal for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, side effects), usage context compared to siblings, and expected return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputName' clearly documented in the schema as 'Name of the input to toggle the mute state of'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples of valid input names or how to discover them, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggles') and the resource ('audio mute state of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'obs-set-input-mute', which appears to be a more specific setter tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-set-input-mute' (which sets mute to a specific state) or 'obs-get-input-mute' (which retrieves the current state). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the input to exist or be active, or context about its typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 ('Triggers') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires OBS to be in a specific state, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., UI changes), error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral transparency, usage guidelines, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use in an OBS environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('keyId' and 'keyModifiers') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses a sequence of keys, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like examples or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Triggers') and resource ('a hotkey'), specifying it uses 'a sequence of keys'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name', which uses a name instead of a key sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly mention OBS (Open Broadcaster Software) context, though the tool name prefix implies it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., OBS must be running), compare it to 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name', or specify scenarios where key sequences are preferred over names. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the current streaming status'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or differentiation from siblings. For a 'get' operation in a complex OBS context, more context (e.g., what 'status' includes) would improve completeness, but it meets the bare minimum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine since there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy, though it could theoretically mention implicit context (e.g., no inputs needed), but that's not required for full credit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the current streaming status' clearly states the action (get) and resource (streaming status), but it's vague about what 'streaming status' entails—it could refer to active/inactive, quality metrics, or other details. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-get-stream-service-settings' or 'obs-get-output-status', which might overlap in functionality. This lack of specificity prevents a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools related to streaming (e.g., 'obs-get-stream-service-settings', 'obs-get-output-status'), the description fails to indicate if this is for high-level status, real-time metrics, or other contexts. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 indicates a write operation ('Adds'), but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects on the recording, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, which aligns well with best practices for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more context would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'chapterName' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra semantic context about the parameter, such as naming conventions or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds') and target resource ('new chapter marker to the file currently being recorded'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-split-record-file' or 'obs-create-scene', which might also involve recording or creation operations, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance by implying the tool should be used when recording is active ('file currently being recorded'), but it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this works only during active recording sessions or if it has prerequisites compared to other creation tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify error conditions (e.g., if the input doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or the return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key information ('Gets the audio monitor type') and efficiently specifies the target ('of an input'). Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what the tool does, but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format. With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputName' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and the resource ('audio monitor type of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obs-get-input-audio-balance' or 'obs-get-input-volume' by specifying the exact property being retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'obs-set-input-audio-monitor-type', which could be inferred but isn't stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., whether the input must exist or be configured), nor does it reference related tools like 'obs-set-input-audio-monitor-type' for setting the value. The description is purely functional without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'Gets an array,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or details the return format (e.g., structure of the array). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output specifics, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in a broader OBS ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single parameter 'unversioned' with its boolean type and description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('array of all available input kinds in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-list' or 'obs-get-filter-kind-list', which could cause confusion about what distinguishes 'input kinds' from other list types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'obs-get-input-list' for inputs themselves or 'obs-get-filter-kind-list' for filter kinds. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose error conditions (e.g., invalid input name), performance characteristics, or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean mute state). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses straightforward language. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally explain the return format (e.g., boolean mute state) or error behavior to be fully complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'inputName' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('audio mute state of an input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar 'get' tools like 'obs-get-input-volume' or 'obs-get-input-audio-balance' beyond specifying the mute state attribute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing input), compare with 'obs-toggle-input-mute' for muting/unmuting, or reference 'obs-get-input-list' to discover available inputs. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the parameter doesn't exist. For a configuration retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 2 documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations covering safety/behavior and no output schema to describe return values, the description should ideally provide more context about what values are returned and any constraints on parameter retrieval.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (category and name of parameter). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and target ('a parameter from the current profile's configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'obs-get-persistent-data' or 'obs-get-input-settings', which also retrieve configuration values from different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a current profile), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'obs-set-profile-parameter' for writing parameters or 'obs-get-profile-list' for listing profiles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if the scene or source doesn't exist), whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), or any performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get the ID'), making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage, achieving optimal conciseness for this simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error handling, or output format (since no output schema exists). For a simple lookup tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions for 'sceneName' and 'sourceName'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the ID') and the target ('scene item by its source name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar 'get' siblings like 'obs-get-scene-items' or 'obs-get-scene-list', which would require a more specific comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene or source), nor does it compare it to sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-items' that might retrieve similar information. Without any contextual usage hints, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, has side effects, or details the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple read operation with 2 parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details, such as what 'active and show state' entails or the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('sourceName' and 'sourceUuid') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying if both parameters are required or how they interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and the resource ('active and show state of a source'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-input-list' or 'obs-get-source-filter-list', which also retrieve information about sources or inputs, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other 'obs-get-*' tools that might retrieve related source information. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('Gets') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid source name), or the return format (e.g., array structure). This leaves gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., array format) and error handling, which could be important for integration. Without annotations, it doesn't fully cover behavioral aspects needed for robust use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sourceName' documented as 'Name of the source'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on valid source names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('array of all of a source's filters'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-source-filter' (singular) or 'obs-get-filter-kind-list', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given siblings like 'obs-get-source-filter' (singular) and 'obs-get-filter-kind-list', the description lacks context about selecting this tool for retrieving all filters of a specific source rather than individual filters or filter types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does without detailing aspects like whether it's read-only, safe to call frequently, requires specific OBS states, or what format the statistics are returned in. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., error conditions, performance impact). For a tool that likely provides detailed data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like session context) are involved. Baseline is 4 due to zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and the target ('statistics about OBS, obs-websocket, and the current session'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-status' or 'obs-get-version', which might also provide statistical or status information, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other 'obs-get-*' tools that might offer overlapping or more specific data. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the settings are returned in, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'stream service settings' include, the return format, or potential errors. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('current stream service settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-stream-status' or 'obs-set-stream-service-settings', which would require more specificity about what exactly these settings encompass.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'obs-get-stream-status' (which might return operational status) and 'obs-set-stream-service-settings' (for modification), the description lacks context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like error conditions (e.g., if OBS isn't running), permissions needed, or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste: 'Gets whether studio mode is enabled'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse without any fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about the return type (e.g., boolean) and potential errors, which could be helpful for an AI agent. With no structured fields to rely on, the description should do more to compensate, but it doesn't fully address these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. It doesn't introduce unnecessary parameter information, keeping it clean and appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('whether studio mode is enabled'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-status' or 'obs-get-current-scene', which also retrieve OBS state information, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., OBS must be running), or compare it to related tools like 'obs-set-studio-mode' for toggling or 'obs-get-status' for broader state checks, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool saves to filesystem (implying a write operation), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, file overwrite behavior, error conditions, or performance implications like latency. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and destination efficiently, making it immediately scannable and perfectly concise for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and destination but lacks behavioral context, error handling, or output details, leaving the agent with gaps despite the clear schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying a 'source' parameter, which aligns with schema fields. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Saves a screenshot') and target resource ('of a source to the filesystem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-source-screenshot' which might retrieve but not save, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., source must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'obs-get-source-screenshot', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Sleeps') but does not specify if this blocks other operations, affects performance, or has side effects like resource usage. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple sleep function) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain return values or behavioral nuances, leaving room for improvement in completeness for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing both parameters ('sleepMillis' and 'sleepFrames') with clear meanings. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sleeps') and specifies the resource ('for a time duration or number of frames'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from siblings, as no other tools in the list appear to perform similar waiting/delaying functions, so this is not a limitation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as whether it's for timing delays in OBS operations or general waiting. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('splits') but doesn't clarify effects like whether this creates a new file while continuing recording, impacts file formats, or requires specific OBS states. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a recording-splitting operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., file naming, recording continuity) or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('splits') and target ('the current file being recorded'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'obs-create-record-chapter' or 'obs-toggle-record-pause', which also relate to recording operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether recording must be active), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'obs-create-record-chapter' for managing recording segments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Stop streaming' implies a mutation action that likely requires streaming to be active, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., does it save data?), error conditions, or response behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of stopping a stream (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or what happens post-execution. For a tool in a rich OBS ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This earns a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, but it could briefly note the lack of parameters for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop streaming in OBS' clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('streaming in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-stop-output' or 'obs-toggle-stream', which could have overlapping or related functionality, preventing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'obs-toggle-stream' and 'obs-start-stream', it's unclear if this tool is for stopping an active stream only, or if it has specific conditions or prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('toggles pause') without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., whether it affects file output, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). It doesn't explain what happens on toggle (e.g., pauses if recording, resumes if paused), making it insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste—'Toggles pause on the record output'—front-loading the core action without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle function with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it lacks details on behavior (e.g., state changes, effects), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of toggling a recording state in OBS, more context is needed to guide effective use, making it inadequate despite the concise phrasing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter details are needed. The description doesn't add param semantics, but this is acceptable given the baseline; it avoids redundancy, earning a score slightly above the minimum viable due to efficient handling of the no-param case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggles pause on the record output' clearly states the action (toggle) and target (record output), distinguishing it from siblings like 'obs-pause-record' and 'obs-resume-record' by implying a state-switching behavior. However, it doesn't specify what 'record output' refers to (e.g., OBS recording), leaving some ambiguity compared to more explicit alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-pause-record' or 'obs-resume-record' is provided. The description implies a toggle action but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., requires recording to be active) or contextual constraints, leaving usage decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions toggling but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it starts/stops the buffer, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple toggle function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of toggling a replay buffer (a state-changing operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'toggles' means in practice, potential errors, or the result of the action, making it inadequate for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('toggles') and resource ('state of the replay buffer output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-start-replay-buffer' or 'obs-stop-replay-buffer', which would require explicit comparison for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-start-replay-buffer' or 'obs-stop-replay-buffer'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the replay buffer must be configured or running, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific OBS states, what happens if streaming isn't active, or what the expected outcome is. 'Toggle' implies state change but lacks details on effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'toggle' means in practice, what states it switches between, or what happens after invocation. Given the complexity of streaming operations and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggle') and resource ('streaming state in OBS'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-start-stream' or 'obs-stop-stream', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-start-stream' or 'obs-stop-stream'. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('toggles') but doesn't explain what 'toggles' entails (e.g., switching between on/off states, side effects, or how it interacts with other virtual cam tools). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's action (toggle) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the toggle behavior, potential states, or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving critical context missing for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy, earning a high score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggles') and target resource ('virtualcam output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-start-virtual-cam' or 'obs-stop-virtual-cam', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'obs-start-virtual-cam' or 'obs-stop-virtual-cam'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific OBS states (e.g., OBS running), what happens on error, or the format of the returned scene data. This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format, making it minimally viable but not fully helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the zero-parameter case correctly without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current active scene in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-list' or 'obs-get-preview-scene', which is why it doesn't achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'obs-get-scene-list' (which lists all scenes) or 'obs-get-preview-scene' (which might get a different scene in studio mode). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), latency, error conditions, or format of the returned name (e.g., string type).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks context like return format or error handling. It meets basic needs but could be enhanced with more behavioral details given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('name of the currently active transition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-get-transition-list' (lists all transitions) and 'obs-set-current-transition' (changes the transition), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for monitoring OBS state or as a prerequisite for setting transitions, nor does it reference related tools like 'obs-get-transition-list' or 'obs-set-current-transition'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format or behavioral traits, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('array of all available source filter kinds'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-source-filter-list' or 'obs-get-filter-default-settings', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, permissions needed, or what the array format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return format (e.g., array structure) or behavioral context. It meets the basic requirement for a simple read operation but doesn't provide full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('array of all hotkey names in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-name' or 'obs-trigger-hotkey-by-key-sequence', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool 'Gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific conditions (e.g., replay buffer must be enabled or have saved files), what happens if no file exists, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Gets the filename of the last replay buffer save file'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral constraints, or output format. For a read-only tool in a complex environment like OBS, more context on when and how to use it would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This earns a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info and aligns with the schema's lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets the filename of the last replay buffer save file'. It specifies the verb ('Gets') and resource ('filename of the last replay buffer save file'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-replay-buffer-status', which might provide related but different information about the replay buffer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to 'obs-get-replay-buffer-status' or 'obs-save-replay-buffer', or any prerequisites like needing the replay buffer to be active. Without such context, users might struggle to select the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it 'Gets a list' but doesn't describe what information is included (e.g., monitor names, resolutions, status), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if no monitors are connected), or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 with the core action ('Gets a list') and resource ('connected monitors'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough context for robust agent use without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity. No compensation is needed since there are no parameters to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('list of connected monitors and information about them'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on monitors, unlike other 'get' tools for scenes, inputs, or profiles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar tools (e.g., 'obs-get-monitor-details'), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., OBS Studio running), exclusions (e.g., no monitors connected), or comparisons to other tools like 'obs-get-output-list' for output devices. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a read operation ('Gets'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, returns paginated results, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks completeness regarding return format or behavioral context, keeping it at a baseline level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline. A score of 4 reflects that it appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('list of available outputs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-settings' or 'obs-get-output-status', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get' tools available (e.g., 'obs-get-input-list', 'obs-get-scene-list'), there's no indication of context or prerequisites for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Gets an array' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's cached or real-time, what happens when no profiles exist, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (permissions, performance, error cases) and usage guidance. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer details from the name and sibling tools, leaving room for uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it correctly implies no filtering or options are available (just 'all profiles'), which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets an array of all profiles' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (profiles), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-get-profile-parameter' (specific parameter) or 'obs-set-current-profile' (mutation), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list-retrieval tools like 'obs-get-scene-list' or 'obs-get-input-list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While the name implies it retrieves all profiles, there's no mention of whether this should be used for enumeration, selection, or as a prerequisite for other operations like 'obs-set-current-profile'. The description doesn't help the agent decide between this and other 'get' tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, returns a path format, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., directory path format) or behavioral aspects like error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in the OBS context. This makes it complete enough for basic understanding but not fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high score as it avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and the resource ('current directory that the record output is set to'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-record-status' or 'obs-set-record-directory', which would require more specific language about what distinguishes this directory retrieval from other record-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether recording must be active), compare it to similar tools like 'obs-get-record-status', or specify scenarios where this directory information is needed, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets' status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what the status includes (e.g., active/inactive, recording state, errors) or any side effects like performance impact. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple status check. However, it lacks details on what the status entails or how it relates to other replay buffer tools, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding in a complex OBS environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could briefly note the lack of inputs for clarity. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('status of the replay buffer output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-last-replay-buffer-replay' or 'obs-get-output-status', which also retrieve replay buffer or output-related information, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used before starting a replay buffer or to monitor its state, nor does it mention related tools like 'obs-start-replay-buffer' or 'obs-stop-replay-buffer' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a read operation ('Gets'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., return format, error handling) that would be helpful for an agent, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it could mention if there are implicit constraints (e.g., no filters). Baseline is 4 for zero params with high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('array of all scene collections'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-list' or 'obs-get-profile-list', which follow a similar pattern for other resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for listing collections versus managing them, 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.
Behavior2/5
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 it 'gets a list' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what format the list returns (e.g., names, IDs, full objects), or any limitations like pagination or permissions required. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., list format, data included) or behavioral aspects like read-only nature, which is crucial since annotations are absent. For a simple list-retrieval tool, it's functional but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates adequately for the simple input structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a list of scenes in OBS' clearly states the action (get) and resource (scenes in OBS), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-current-scene' or 'obs-get-scene-items', which also retrieve scene-related information but with different scopes or details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-get-current-scene' (for the active scene) and 'obs-get-scene-items' (for items within a scene), the agent must infer usage based on naming alone, lacking explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, returns data in a particular format, or has any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values or behavioral context. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough information for full understanding, especially without annotations to supplement it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any, earning a high baseline score for not introducing unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('kind/type of the current transition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-current-transition' or 'obs-get-transition-list', which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'obs-get-current-transition' or 'obs-get-transition-list'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like potential rate limits, authentication needs, or return format details. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding in a crowded sibling toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of available transitions in OBS', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-current-transition' or 'obs-get-transition-kind', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools related to transitions (e.g., 'obs-get-current-transition', 'obs-get-transition-kind'), the description lacks context for selection, though it doesn't mislead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the key action ('Get') and resource, which is ideal for quick understanding by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'settings' entail (e.g., transition type, duration, properties) or provide any behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results or handle errors. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. It correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('settings of the current transition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-transition-duration' or 'obs-get-transition-kind', which also retrieve transition-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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as other transition-related getters like 'obs-get-transition-duration' or 'obs-get-transition-list'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or specific use cases, offering only a basic functional statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the version information returns, or if there are any rate limits or constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the return format or behavioral context that would help an agent use it effectively, especially compared to similar sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what information is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making it adequate for this simple case. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('OBS Studio version information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-stats' or 'obs-get-status', which also retrieve information but about different aspects of OBS Studio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'obs-get-*' tools available, there's no indication of what specific version information this returns or when it's preferred over other status-checking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a read operation ('Gets'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if OBS isn't running), response format, or performance considerations (e.g., latency). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Gets the current video settings'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate as a basic read operation. However, it lacks context about what 'video settings' includes or the response structure, which could hinder the agent's ability to use the output effectively. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is assigned because the schema fully covers the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('current video settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obs-set-video-settings' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify what 'video settings' entail (e.g., resolution, frame rate), leaving some ambiguity compared to more detailed sibling descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving settings, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., OBS must be running), dependencies, or contrast with similar tools like 'obs-get-status' or 'obs-get-stats'. The agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or address other behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or error responses. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Gets the status') and specifies the target resource ('virtualcam output'), making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational context. For a status-checking tool, explaining what 'status' includes would enhance completeness, but the current description meets the baseline for such a straightforward function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a high baseline score. No additional semantic value could be added beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('status of the virtualcam output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'obs-start-virtual-cam' or 'obs-stop-virtual-cam' by focusing on status retrieval rather than control. However, it doesn't specify what 'status' entails (e.g., active/inactive, error states), which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for checking virtual camera status, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether virtualcam must be configured), related tools (e.g., use before starting/stopping virtualcam), or error conditions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('saves') but does not explain what 'saves' entails—e.g., where the output is saved, if it overwrites existing files, or any side effects like stopping the buffer. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not cover behavioral aspects like where the saved content goes or prerequisites (e.g., replay buffer must be running), which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like file paths) are involved. Baseline is high due to zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Saves the contents of the replay buffer output' clearly states the action (saves) and resource (replay buffer output), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'obs-get-last-replay-buffer-replay' or 'obs-toggle-replay-buffer', which slightly limits clarity in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as whether it requires the replay buffer to be active or if it's related to other replay buffer operations. The description lacks context for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stops') but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., if it discards unsaved buffer content), permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, side effects, or return values. Given the complexity of stopping a replay buffer, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('stops') and the target ('replay buffer output'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'obs-toggle-replay-buffer' which likely offers similar functionality, preventing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-toggle-replay-buffer' or 'obs-save-replay-buffer'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the replay buffer must be active) or consequences, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Stops' implies a state-changing action, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the virtual camera isn't running, or if there are side effects like affecting other OBS components. It lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral implications, or how it relates to siblings. For a state-changing tool with no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stops') and the target resource ('virtualcam output'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'obs-toggle-virtual-cam' or 'obs-get-virtual-cam-status', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'obs-toggle-virtual-cam' or 'obs-start-virtual-cam', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring the virtual camera to be running first. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions testing connection but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'test' entails (e.g., ping, handshake, error handling), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output expectations, which could help an agent use it more effectively in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Test the connection') and resource ('to OBS WebSocket'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the purpose is distinct enough given the tool name and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 or in what context. The description only states what it does without indicating prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other tools like 'obs-get-status' which might provide similar connectivity information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 ('Trigger a transition') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires Studio Mode to be enabled, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and context without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of triggering a transition in a broadcasting context, the description is incomplete. No annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure leave gaps in understanding prerequisites, effects, or error handling. It should provide more context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters or context are required. Baseline is high due to no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Trigger a transition') and the specific context ('from preview to program scene in Studio Mode'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'obs-trigger-transition', which might handle general transitions, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in OBS Studio Mode when transitioning from preview to program, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'obs-trigger-transition' or other scene-setting tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, relying on contextual inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool performs a 'Set' action, implying a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is immediate or reversible, error conditions, or how it interacts with OBS Studio Mode. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format, which are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'sceneName' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('current preview scene in OBS Studio Mode'), with the verb 'Set' being specific and distinct from other actions like 'Get' or 'Toggle'. It effectively differentiates this tool from sibling tools like 'obs-get-preview-scene' and 'obs-set-current-scene', making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in OBS Studio Mode context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obs-set-current-scene' or 'obs-trigger-studio-transition'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the Studio Mode prerequisite, which is useful, but lacks details on what the transition does (e.g., switches scenes, effects), potential side effects (e.g., on live streams), error conditions, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the prerequisite without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context with the prerequisite. However, as a mutation tool that likely affects OBS state, it should ideally include more about what the transition entails, potential impacts, or error handling to be fully complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate since none are needed. This earns a baseline score of 4, as the tool requires no parameters and the description correctly avoids unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Trigger a scene transition') and target resource ('in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'obs-trigger-studio-transition', which appears to serve a similar function, leaving some ambiguity about why this specific tool exists versus its sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('Studio Mode must be enabled'), which gives some context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'obs-trigger-studio-transition' or other transition-related tools, offering only implied guidance rather than explicit comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, making every word count without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'status' includes, error handling). It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but could be more informative about the return value or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, aligning with the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly avoids redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and the target ('current status of the OBS MCP server and OBS connection'), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific OBS components like scenes, inputs, or outputs. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking server/connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'obs-test-connection' for connectivity testing) or provide exclusions. Usage context is inferred rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires OBS to be running, if it works in all modes, or what happens if no transition is active. The description adds basic context but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential detail (milliseconds). Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., numeric value, error cases) or dependencies, leaving gaps an agent might need to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist, and the schema fully covers this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('duration of the current transition'), with precise units ('milliseconds'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'obs-get-current-transition' (which gets the transition name) and 'obs-set-transition-duration' (which sets the duration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the current transition duration is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like checking transition settings or status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about handling the current profile, which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the schema alone. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if the profile doesn't exist, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the main action and a key edge case but misses details like return values, error handling, or prerequisites. For a destructive operation, more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'profileName' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or valid profile names, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Removes') and resource ('a profile'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'obs-create-profile' and 'obs-set-current-profile' by focusing on deletion rather than creation or selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool by explaining the behavior if the current profile is chosen ('it will change to a different profile first'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'obs-set-current-profile' for switching profiles without removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral details like error conditions (e.g., if Studio Mode is off), response format, or whether it requires specific OBS states. It adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and earns its place by clearly conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values or error handling, which could be helpful despite the low complexity. It meets basic needs but has room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('current preview scene in OBS Studio Mode'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'obs-get-current-scene' (which gets the program scene) and 'obs-set-preview-scene' (which sets it). It precisely defines the tool's function without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'in OBS Studio Mode', suggesting it's only relevant when Studio Mode is active. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as checking if Studio Mode is enabled first with 'obs-get-studio-mode'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/royshil/obs-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/royshil/obs-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![obs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/royshil/obs-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/royshil/obs-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/royshil/obs-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server