obs-get-filter-default-settings

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.