get_output_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden. It discloses the return fields and includes state information ('active/reconnecting'), but it does not mention error behavior, requirements (e.g., output must exist), or whether the output needs to be running. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists concrete data items. No wasted words.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does and what fields are returned. It lacks usage context relative to sibling status tools, but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly sufficient. The missing guidance on when to use this versus get_stream_status/get_record_status prevents a perfect score.

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 only parameter is 'output_name', and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'named output' but provides no guidance on valid values or where to obtain the output name (e.g., via get_output_list). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 retrieves 'Detailed status of a named output' and enumerates specific data fields (active/reconnecting, timecode, duration, congestion, bytes sent, frame counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stream_status or get_record_status which focus on specific output types.

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 it is for a named output (likely from get_output_list), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over similar status tools like get_stream_status or get_record_status. No alternatives are mentioned, and no exclusions are given.

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