Diagnose OBS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool checks and that it returns a structured report, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention prerequisites like OBS running, or describe any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose ('Full OBS health check') followed by a scannable list of checked items. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the scope well by listing the health check areas and mentioning the structured report. It could be more complete by noting prerequisites (e.g., OBS must be running) or stating that it is a read-only diagnostic, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and the schema already confirms an empty parameter set.

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 this is a 'Full OBS health check' and enumerates specific areas it covers (connection, scene, recording, streaming, FPS, CPU, memory, dropped frames, audio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_stream or diagnose_recording, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 provides clear context for use as an overall health check, and the word 'Full' implies it is the comprehensive option. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for specific issues, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance with exclusions or alternatives.

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