get_group_scene_item_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that OBS groups are 'broken under the hood', which is a useful behavioral warning. However, it does not describe the precise failure mode, return format, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

One sentence with a clear reference and a practical caveat. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded and efficient, wasting no space.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description leverages the sibling reference to convey return semantics, and adds a warning about group behavior. It lacks explicit details on return structure or error cases, but for a getter with a clear analogy, it is mostly complete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for explaining the parameter. It clarifies that the tool is 'for a group', implying group_name identifies the group. But it does not specify the exact expected format, how to discover group names, or any constraints. Given the simple single string parameter, the inference is adequate, but not thorough.

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 tool is like get_scene_item_list but for a group, giving a specific verb+resource and distinguishing it from the sibling tool. It explicitly names the analogous tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance by advising 'prefer nested scenes over groups where possible', implying when to use this tool and when to avoid it. It also references the alternative get_scene_item_list for non-group scenes. However, it does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use scenario beyond the preference.

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