obs-get-input-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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.