streamlabs_get_streaming_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation (getting status) and hints at the return being a status string. However, it does not disclose whether the status is for both streaming and recording simultaneously, how often it updates, or whether it can fail (e.g., when not connected). Still, for a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose and provides a clear example list of possible statuses. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (status). However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., a string vs. an object with streaming and recording booleans), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. A slightly more explicit note about response shape would elevate completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned status represents (streaming/recording state, with example values). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description appropriately focuses on the output semantics, which is useful for the agent.

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's purpose: getting current streaming/recording status, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('streaming/recording status'). It also lists example statuses ('offline, starting, live, ending, etc.'), which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like streamlabs_toggle_streaming, though the name already conveys a read-only intent.

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 this tool (to check streaming/recording status) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like streamlabs_toggle_streaming. The absence of parameters and the read-only nature make usage fairly self-evident, but there is no explicit context or exclusions.

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