get_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it states that only patched fixtures are included and lists each returned field. It omits the meaning of include_old and the exact filtering combination behavior, but the core read-only listing behavior is clear.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the tool's purpose before listing output fields; every sentence adds information and there is no filler. The structure makes the scope and filters 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?

The description is adequate for a simple filtered listing and the output schema covers return shape, but it does not explain include_old or route the agent to sibling tools for different fixture queries. An agent selecting between get_channels and get_fixture_details/summary would need more context.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates by saying the listing is filterable by layer and/or fixture type, which maps to layer and inst_type. The third parameter, include_old, is entirely unexplained, leaving a clear gap.

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?

Description names a concrete resource ('Channel + DMX address listing'), states it is filterable by layer/fixture type, and enumerates entry fields, so an agent can tell it is a read-only channel/address retrieval. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_fixture_details or get_fixture_summary, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'filterable by layer and/or fixture type' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance against the twelve siblings. 'Includes only patched fixtures' provides a scope constraint, not a usage rule.

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