obs-get-scene-item-transform

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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions (e.g., invalid scene name or item ID), performance characteristics, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of retrieving transform data (which could involve multiple numeric values) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., coordinates, angles, scale factors) or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly without guessing.

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 clear documentation for 'sceneName' and 'sceneItemId'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'position, rotation, scale, or crop of a scene item', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-item-id' or 'obs-get-scene-items', which also retrieve scene item information but for different attributes.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'obs-get-scene-items' (which might list items) or 'obs-set-scene-item-transform' (which modifies transforms). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.