take_stream_snapshot

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 doesn't state what side effects a snapshot produces, whether it's read-only or mutating, where the snapshot data goes, or what the response format looks like. The name suggests an innocuous operation but nothing is confirmed.

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 concise sentence with no excess words. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately abridged, so the conciseness reflects brevity more than effective compression of necessary information.

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 an optional undocumented parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral context, the description is inadequate. The agent lacks information about what the snapshot returns, whether sourceName is needed, and what distinguishes this from sibling tools. More detail is required for a tool of even modest complexity.

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 single parameter sourceName is undocumented in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description gives no hint whether sourceName refers to OBS source, a camera input, or the stream itself. With no schema-level documentation either, the agent must guess at the parameter's meaning and whether it's optional.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Take a snapshot of the current stream'), which establishes the basic purpose. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'stream snapshot' entails (is it a video frame, a thumbnail, recording state?) or how it differs from related sibling tools like get_current_show_state or get_obs_health, leaving ambiguity about what the snapshot captures.

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. With 17 sibling tools covering state, health, and show management, the agent has no help distinguishing when a snapshot is appropriate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given.

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