obs-get-input-audio-sync-offset

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.