obs-open-input-interact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions opening a dialog but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires user interaction, if it's read-only or mutative, what happens if the input doesn't exist, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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's front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's context is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'interact dialog' does, its effects, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full scope of this operation among many siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'inputName' and 'inputUuid' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying if both parameters are required or how they interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Opens the interact dialog of an input' clearly states the action (opens) and target (interact dialog of an input), but it's somewhat vague about what 'interact dialog' entails and doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'obs-open-input-filters' or 'obs-open-input-properties'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the dialog's function or context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for opening dialogs or managing inputs (e.g., 'obs-open-input-filters'), the description doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.