obs_output_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and excels. It discloses critical hidden behaviors: counters are NOT cleared when output stops, outputTimecode and outputDuration reset to zero and therefore agree with outputActive, rising skipped frames with congestion indicates a bottleneck, outputReconnecting interrupts broadcast without outputActive going false, and healthy metrics do not prove the relay is forwarding to platforms. These are exactly the insights an agent needs.

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 lengthy but exceptionally dense with valuable information. Each paragraph has a clear purpose: overview, the critical active-gating caveat, metrics interpretation, and limitation warning. The concrete example of the live rig (1.68 GB, 131,933 frames) illustrates the pitfall effectively. While not concise, every sentence earns its place, only slightly excessive in length for a hint.

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 read-only health tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is comprehensively complete. It covers what the tool does, how to interpret its output ('outputTotalFrames', 'outputCongestion', 'outputReconnecting'), critical state-reset behavior, and significant limitations (relay blindness). Nothing meaningful is left undisclosed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage for the single `outputName` parameter, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema ('Omit outputName to get all of them at once'), which clarifies the special omit behavior and enriches the parameter's semantics, so a 4 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 opening sentence, 'Live health of an output: whether it is running, how long it has been running, how many bytes it has pushed, how many frames it dropped, and how congested it is,' uses a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It effectively differentiates this health-check tool from siblings like obs_list_outputs or obs_health by focusing on real-time output status and even calls it 'the fastest read of what this machine is actually doing right now.'

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 actionable usage guidance: 'Read outputActive first and let it gate everything else' and identifies which counters to watch ('the two numbers to watch over time are outputSkippedFrames and outputCongestion'). While it provides rich situational context for when to use the tool, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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