obs-get-video-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 it's a read operation ('Gets'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if OBS isn't running), response format, or performance considerations (e.g., latency). 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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Gets the current video settings'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.

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 adequate as a basic read operation. However, it lacks context about what 'video settings' includes or the response structure, which could hinder the agent's ability to use the output effectively. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is assigned because the schema fully covers the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 action ('Gets') and resource ('current video settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'obs-set-video-settings' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify what 'video settings' entail (e.g., resolution, frame rate), leaving some ambiguity compared to more detailed sibling descriptions.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving settings, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., OBS must be running), dependencies, or contrast with similar tools like 'obs-get-status' or 'obs-get-stats'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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