OBS status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists what information is returned (connection, version, scene, etc.), but it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., when OBS is not running), nor explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation. This leaves some gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a helpful example. Every word contributes, and there is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete for a status-check tool. It states the core content and provides a usage example. It could be enriched by noting that it serves as a health check before other OBS commands, but this is not essential.

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 has zero parameters, and the description correctly reflects that. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed.

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 returns overall OBS status including connection, version, current scene, and recording/streaming state. It uses a specific verb ('status') and resource ('OBS'), and the example clarifies the intent. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_obs_stats', relying on 'Overall' to imply a broader overview.

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 example 'Is OBS connected?' gives a clear use case, implying this tool is for quick connection/status checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_obs_stats, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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