channel_community

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. However, it adds no information about what the tool does (e.g., whether it reads, writes, or modifies data), its effects, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves the agent with no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the input schema.

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?

While the description is extremely concise with just two words, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. It fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding. A more structured approach with a clear purpose statement would be necessary for true conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity implied by having parameters and sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's role, behavior, or how to use it effectively. This leaves significant gaps in usability.

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%, with both parameters ('id' and 'cursor') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as how 'id' relates to channels or what 'cursor' is used for. Since the schema provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Channel Community' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful information about what the tool actually does. It provides no verb indicating action (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'update') and no specification of what resource or operation is involved, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'channel_details' or 'channel_videos'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'channel_details' and 'community_post_details' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others.

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