get_obs_status

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

The description adds specific behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that it checks both WebSocket reachability and recording state. This is useful and aligns with the annotation, with no contradictions.

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 conveys the tool's purpose efficiently, with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it does. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., booleans or human-readable text), which might be helpful but is not critical given the simplicity.

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 baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are 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's verb ('Report') and resource ('OBS WebSocket reachability' and 'whether OBS is currently recording'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_obs_recording and stop_obs_recording, which control recording rather than report 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 implies usage as a status-check tool before or during OBS operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or how it relates to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage is inferred rather than clearly guided.

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