obs-get-transition-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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.

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, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the key action ('Get') and resource, which is ideal for quick understanding by an AI agent.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'settings' entail (e.g., transition type, duration, properties) or provide any behavioral context, which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results or handle errors. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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, as there are none to document. It correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 resource ('settings of the current transition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-transition-duration' or 'obs-get-transition-kind', which also retrieve transition-related information, 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, such as other transition-related getters like 'obs-get-transition-duration' or 'obs-get-transition-list'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or specific use cases, offering only a basic functional statement.

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