obs-get-input-audio-monitor-type

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.