obs-get-output-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'status' includes (e.g., active/inactive, error states, performance metrics), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Gets the status of an output'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of OBS tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails, potential return values, or error conditions. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'outputName' clearly documented as 'Output name'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on valid output names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Gets the status of an output' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('status of an output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-list' or 'obs-get-output-settings', which also retrieve output-related information but for different aspects. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether the output must be active or if it works for all output types. With many sibling tools like 'obs-get-output-list' and 'obs-get-output-settings', the lack of comparative guidance leaves usage ambiguous.

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