get_channel_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds a useful behavioral note that it 'Uses authenticated session if logged in' and clarifies it's a read-only style operation ('Get only'). It does not, however, disclose what happens when not logged in, return format, or any rate-limiting/error behavior, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately states purpose and distinguishes from scraping, the second adds relevant authentication context. No word is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scope, and an authentication nuance. It lacks explicit return-value details, but given the low complexity and clear purpose, the description is reasonably complete.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, so the schema already clearly defines it. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Get only the channel/group information') and a specific scope ('without scraping posts'), which distinguishes it from the many scraping tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named 'api_get_channel_info' sibling, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 usage context: use this when you need just channel/group info rather than posts, and it notes the authenticated session behavior. However, it neither explicitly names alternative tools nor provides clear when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the usage guidance at an implied level.

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