obs-stop-stream

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. 'Stop streaming' implies a mutation action that likely requires streaming to be active, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., does it save data?), error conditions, or response behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 stopping a stream (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or what happens post-execution. For a tool in a rich OBS ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This earns a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, but it could briefly note the lack of parameters for clarity.

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 'Stop streaming in OBS' clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('streaming in OBS'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-stop-output' or 'obs-toggle-stream', which could have overlapping or related functionality, preventing 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'obs-toggle-stream' and 'obs-start-stream', it's unclear if this tool is for stopping an active stream only, or if it has specific conditions or prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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