obs-get-studio-mode

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, 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 other aspects like error conditions (e.g., if OBS isn't running), permissions needed, or what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero waste: 'Gets whether studio mode is enabled'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse without any fluff or redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about the return type (e.g., boolean) and potential errors, which could be helpful for an AI agent. With no structured fields to rely on, the description should do more to compensate, but it doesn't fully address these gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline for no parameters. It doesn't introduce unnecessary parameter information, keeping it clean and 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 ('whether studio mode is enabled'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-status' or 'obs-get-current-scene', which also retrieve OBS state information, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.

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, context (e.g., OBS must be running), or compare it to related tools like 'obs-set-studio-mode' for toggling or 'obs-get-status' for broader state checks, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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