OBS Server Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'current status' implies a snapshot). Since annotations are strong, a 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict them and adds slight value beyond what annotations provide.

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 fully conveys the purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, read-only status 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, strong annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the user what it reports (server status and connection). One could argue it might mention whether it checks both server and OBS application health, but 'server and OBS connection' is sufficiently broad.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (effectively no params to describe). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly does not add parameter information because 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 'Get the current status of the OBS MCP server and OBS connection' clearly states the verb (get), resource (status of OBS MCP server and OBS connection), and scope (current status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like obs-test-connection and obs-get-stats, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is a lightweight health check for the server connection, useful for verifying connectivity before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives like obs-test-connection or obs-get-version, so there is room for clearer differentiation.

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