get_input_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and notes the optional restriction by input kind. It does not disclose details like whether the list is global or scene-specific, return ordering, or array structure, which for a simple getter is a minor gap.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main action and one for the parameter. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states purpose and parameter behavior, but it does not describe the return structure (e.g., that it returns an array of input objects with names and kinds). This is a minor completeness gap given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining input_kind as 'Optional — restrict to one kind' and pointing to get_input_kind_list for valid values. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property, though it stops short of giving concrete examples or enumerating possible values.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all inputs'), with concrete examples of source types (mic, capture card, browser source). It clearly distinguishes from related sibling tools like get_input_kind_list, which lists input kinds rather than inputs themselves.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list inputs) and provides guidance on the optional filtering parameter by referencing get_input_kind_list. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., get_special_inputs), leaving some usage context implicit.

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