ecamm_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by telling the agent what signals to read — notably that start/pause button labels reveal whether Ecamm is live or recording — which is interpretation guidance the annotations cannot provide. It does not state behavior when Ecamm is disconnected or not running.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with connection/approval/live status and then enumerates the remaining fields. The comma list is dense but every item maps to a distinct piece of returned state; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the state fields an agent will receive. It stops short of describing the response shape or the failure mode when Ecamm is not connected, which is the main remaining gap for a zero-parameter status tool.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States the specific resource ('Ecamm Live') and enumerates exactly what status is returned: connection, approval state, live status, button labels, scene, viewers, preview mode, mutes, volumes, Zoom state. An agent can tell this is a read-only snapshot tool, though it does not name a sibling (e.g. ecamm_preflight or ecamm_list_scenes) to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that a status snapshot is the right call before mutating state; the parenthetical about button labels is the only interpretive hint.

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