obs-get-input-volume

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.