get_output_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that this is a listing (read-only) operation and specifies the scope ('every registered output') with useful type enumeration. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or describe the return format, leaving some gap given the absence of annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a parenthetical enumeration of output types. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is fully complete. It states what is listed (registered OBS outputs) and clarifies the categories. No output schema exists, but the tool's purpose is entirely clear and the description suffices.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no param-related info, which is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('registered OBS output'), enumerating the key output types (stream, record, virtualcam, replay buffer) and plugin-added outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_output_status or toggle_output, which target individual outputs.

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 clearly implies use when the agent needs a full inventory of outputs, with no exclusions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_output_status for individual output details, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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