about_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about quota cost (2 units), which isn't in the schema, but doesn't mention other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format looks like. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just two short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and operational detail (quota cost) following. Every word earns its place, though some might argue it's too brief given the lack of other context. The structure is front-loaded with the main function.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions quota cost but omits crucial context about response format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how this tool differs from the many channel-related siblings. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational guidance.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'channel details', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other channel-related siblings like 'channel_details' or 'channel_metadata' (if they existed), though among the actual siblings listed, it's distinct as the only general channel info tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'channel_videos', 'channel_playlists', and 'channel_community_posts', there's no indication that this tool is for general metadata while others are for specific content types. The quota cost mention is operational but not usage guidance.

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