get_source_active

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the two distinct visibility states (videoActive vs. videoShowing), which clarifies likely behavioral nuance and source type scope. However, it does not mention return format or error 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 two sentences and an Args list, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and clearly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description explains what the tool checks but lacks explicit return value details (e.g., whether it returns a single boolean or an object with videoActive/videoShowing). With no output schema, this is a notable gap for a getter tool, though the simple parameter and clear purpose compensate partially.

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 input schema only specifies source_name as a required string. The description adds meaning by stating it is the name of the input or scene, which is essential context since schema description coverage is 0%.

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 checks whether a source is showing in Program (videoActive) and/or visible in the UI (videoShowing). It specifies the resource (source, which includes inputs or scenes) and the action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other source properties.

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 (when you need to know if a source is active or visible) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over related tools, though the unique purpose is fairly evident.

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