obs-get-stream-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. It states it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get the current streaming status'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or differentiation from siblings. For a 'get' operation in a complex OBS context, more context (e.g., what 'status' includes) would improve completeness, but it meets the bare minimum.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine since there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy, though it could theoretically mention implicit context (e.g., no inputs needed), but that's not required for full credit.

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 'Get the current streaming status' clearly states the action (get) and resource (streaming status), but it's vague about what 'streaming status' entails—it could refer to active/inactive, quality metrics, or other details. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'obs-get-stream-service-settings' or 'obs-get-output-status', which might overlap in functionality. This lack of specificity prevents a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to streaming (e.g., 'obs-get-stream-service-settings', 'obs-get-output-status'), the description fails to indicate if this is for high-level status, real-time metrics, or other contexts. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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