get_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden but only mentions that channels are listed with their buffer index. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether sessions must be active, or what happens for invalid session IDs. The buffer index detail adds some useful context, but behavioral expectations remain minimal.

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 informative sentence that states the action, the resource, and a useful detail (buffer index). No filler or redundant wording. It is efficiently structured, though it could arguably fit more guidance in the same space.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and 100% schema coverage, so a fairly minimal description is reasonable. However, no annotations exist and the tool sits among ~45 siblings, so naming when/why to use this inspection tool would meaningfully improve completeness. The return structure is documented via the output schema, which offsets some of the gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—the sole parameter session_id is described as 'The session to inspect.' The description adds no detail beyond 'a session,' matching the schema's meaning. Since schema fully documents the parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add format constraints or edge-case behavior.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('channels a session is producing') and adds the detail about buffer index. It has a clear, identifiable purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_band_power or get_psd, which are about signal metrics rather than channel enumeration.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are related inspection tools (stream_status, get_band_power, get_psd), but nothing explains why the agent should choose get_channels over them, or whether it applies to active vs recorded sessions.

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