Get Virtual Camera Status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious (it gets status), but does not contradict annotations. It is acceptable but does not enrich the agent's understanding of return values or edge cases.

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 that precisely states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a top score for conciseness.

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) and that annotations cover safety, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not clarify what the status represents (e.g., boolean active/inactive) or any potential error conditions. A short note on return semantics would improve completeness, but it is not critically deficient for a trivial getter.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, so it fully satisfies this dimension.

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 it gets the status of the virtualcam output, with a specific verb (Gets) and resource (status of the virtualcam output). This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like obs-start-virtual-cam and obs-stop-virtual-cam, and aligns with other status getters in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions. However, the purpose is straightforward and implied by the name and description, so it meets the minimum viable level without misleading context.

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