obs-send-stream-caption

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 mentions sending caption text but does not cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects stream status, potential rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely interacts with a live stream. It does not explain what happens after sending the caption, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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 the single parameter 'captionText' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is 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 action ('Sends') and the resource ('CEA-608 caption text over the stream output'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-broadcast-custom-event' or 'obs-trigger-media-input-action', which might also involve stream output interactions, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 caption-related tools or stream control tools in the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.

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