get_channel_info

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (read-only operation) and adds that the tool works for both channels and private groups. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling for missing channels, or rate limits. The annotation already covers safety, so the description provides marginal added value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part is necessary: verb, resource, scope (channel or private group), input method (name or ID). It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's scope (channels and private groups) and input method. However, it lacks information on error cases or whether the tool behaves identically for both resource types. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple read tool.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description clarifies that the 'channel' parameter accepts either a name or an ID. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's empty description, helping the agent understand the expected input format.

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 details for a channel or private group by name or ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('channel or private group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_channel_members or get_channel_messages.

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. Among 27 siblings, there is no mention of when to prefer get_channel_info over tools like get_channel_members or get_channel_digest, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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