obs-get-monitor-list

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 a list' but doesn't describe what information is included (e.g., monitor names, resolutions, status), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if no monitors are connected), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Gets a list') and resource ('connected monitors'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough context for robust agent use without additional assumptions.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity. No compensation is needed since there are no parameters to describe.

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 ('list of connected monitors and information about them'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on monitors, unlike other 'get' tools for scenes, inputs, or profiles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar tools (e.g., 'obs-get-monitor-details'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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., OBS Studio running), exclusions (e.g., no monitors connected), or comparisons to other tools like 'obs-get-output-list' for output devices. Usage is implied by the name and purpose 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.