obs_get_output_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the keys an output accepts depend entirely on its kind, there is no schema request for them, and the returned object is the only list of meaningful keys. It also warns 'expect less than you think' with a concrete example. This is strong transparency.

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 fairly long but front-loaded with the core purpose. The latter half provides essential context about what the settings do not contain, which is valuable but adds length. It is not overly verbose, but the length is justified by the critical clarifications.

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 has a single param, a simple task, but no output schema or annotations. The description compensates by explaining what the response will look like (a list of keys) and gives a concrete example. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do, preventing common misuse. Given the complexity and lack of structured info, this is quite 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?

The input schema covers the single parameter fully (outputName with description 'Exact output name from obs_list_outputs'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context on the output type but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose is clear: it reads an output's settings object. It distinguishes itself from obs_set_output_settings by explicitly stating it should be used before that, and the description clarifies it is for reading, not for finding streaming destinations. This is a specific verb+resource with some differentiation from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use it (before obs_set_output_settings) and provides clear exclusions: it cannot tell you where the rig is streaming, nor will writing to it change the destination. It also clarifies that bitrate and encoder settings are profile-level, so this tool is not for those. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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