Get Record Status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It doesn't contradict annotations. However, it adds no extra behavioral information such as what fields are included in the status response (e.g., recording state, timecode, paused state), or potential errors. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the minimal description is adequate but not enriched.

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 and front-loaded. It's concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. It doesn't waste words, making it effective for a simple tool.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is sufficient to convey the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on the return value format or what 'status' means specifically (e.g., active/paused/stopped). With no annotations beyond read-only, an agent might still need additional inference from the name and sibling patterns. Overall, it's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema coverage is 100% (empty object), and the description adds no parameter info because there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't detract from that.

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 states the tool gets the status of the record output, which is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like obs-get-stream-status, obs-get-virtual-cam-status, or obs-get-replay-buffer-status. It's a specific verb+resource, though it could benefit from mentioning the output type or recording specifics.

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 like obs-get-output-status or obs-get-record-status (which is this tool itself). It doesn't mention when to check record status, whether it should be used before starting/stopping recording, or if there are prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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