get_channel

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'get details' without disclosing behavioral traits such as required permissions, error cases, or side effects. For a read operation, the lack of transparency is a gap; the description does not add value beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description could clarify what 'details' encompasses (e.g., name, description, members). It is minimal but adequate for a straightforward get operation. However, there is room for improvement to ensure completeness.

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 covers both parameters (team_id, channel_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'channel', clearly indicating a read operation to retrieve details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_channels' (which lists multiple channels) and mutation tools like 'create_channel' or 'update_channel'.

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 usage when a specific channel's details are needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For a simple get tool, the purpose is obvious, but no explicit context is given.

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