obs-get-virtual-cam-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or address other behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or error responses. 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Gets the status') and specifies the target resource ('virtualcam output'), making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational context. For a status-checking tool, explaining what 'status' includes would enhance completeness, but the current description meets the baseline for such a straightforward function.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a high baseline score. No additional semantic value could be added beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.

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 action ('Gets') and resource ('status of the virtualcam output'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'obs-start-virtual-cam' or 'obs-stop-virtual-cam' by focusing on status retrieval rather than control. However, it doesn't specify what 'status' entails (e.g., active/inactive, error states), which prevents a perfect 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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for checking virtual camera status, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether virtualcam must be configured), related tools (e.g., use before starting/stopping virtualcam), or error conditions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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