get_obs_health

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 does indicate this is a read-only status tool ('Get...status and health metrics'), which implies safety. But it doesn't disclose what specific health metrics are returned, whether it attempts a connection refresh, or whether it has side effects like pinging OBS.

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 sentence with zero waste. It names the tool behavior and the resource it covers. Efficiently front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter health-check tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely adequate. However, given the sibling set includes reconnect_obs, it would be valuable to clarify whether this tool performs active probing or only reports cached/passive status, and whether any connection state implications follow from calling it. No output schema means the description should hint at what health metrics look like, which it does only superficially.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially satisfied since there's nothing to document), the description faces no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate—there are no parameters requiring additional meaning.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving OBS connection status and health metrics. The verb 'get' plus the specific resource ('OBS connection status and health metrics') makes the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reconnect_obs or get_debug_config, though 'health metrics' adds distinguishing context.

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 implies this is a read/health-check tool that should be used when an agent needs OBS connection state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or reference alternatives—e.g., it doesn't say to use reconnect_obs when trying to fix a connection, or get_scene_list for scene info. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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