Get Output Status

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not describe what kind of status is returned, possible states, or any caveats, nor does it add context like date-range scoping as seen in the calibration example.

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 sentence with no filler words, making it appropriately concise for a trivial getter. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, simple read-only getter), the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It does not specify what output status values look like or how to obtain valid outputName values, though the sibling tool obs-get-output-list could fill that gap. More context about the return format would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% because the single parameter outputName has the description 'Output name'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema alone carries the semantic weight.

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?

"Gets the status of an output" clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (output status), matching the title and distinguishing it from sibling tools that get output settings or lists. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with related status tools like obs-get-record-status or obs-get-stream-status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, exclusions, or references to related tools (e.g., obs-get-output-list for retrieving valid output names) are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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