get_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation (get information) but does not disclose details such as return format, possible empty results, or whether livestream availability is dynamic. The existence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the lack of return-value details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete. It conveys the core purpose and distinguishes from siblings. The output schema likely covers return values. Minor gap: no mention of whether the channel list varies by region or time, which could be relevant.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty and the description accurately reflects that no input is required. This is the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 the specific resource 'available Tagesschau channels and livestreams.' This distinguishes it from sibling news-content tools (get_latest_news, search_news, etc.) because it targets channel/livestream metadata rather than articles.

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 when to use the tool (when channel/livestream information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusion scenarios. It does not mention sibling tools or contrast with news retrieval.

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