IRL: ready to go out?

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the three-value verdict and explaining why a setting matters ('close when inactive' would blind the BRB switcher). It stops short of describing how the verdict is structured or how warnings surface, but the operational rationale is rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the check list, then the verdict enum, then read-only. It is a single dense run-on sentence that is efficient for a checklist tool, though the long parentheticals add reading cost without strictly earning every word.

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 return-value burden and does supply the verdict vocabulary (ready, ready_with_warnings, not_ready), plus the read-only guarantee. It does not say what fields accompany the verdict or how failures are itemized, a minor remaining gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (liveScene, brbScene, feedInput) are already documented in the schema. The description references live/BRB scenes and the Media Source feed, but adds no naming or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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 a precise verb (checks) and a well-scoped resource (OBS wiring for an incoming phone/camera IRL feed), then enumerates the exact conditions verified. An agent can distinguish this pre-flight IRL check from narrower siblings like check_source_record or get_overview without opening a schema.

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 framing ('ready to go out', 'wired for an incoming phone/camera feed') clearly implies the pre-stream readiness use case. However, it never states when not to use it or names an alternative check tool for a narrower question, leaving the agent to infer routing among the many sibling checkers.

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