Get channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is the response shape (`<modulation>:<frequency>` or `none`), which helps interpret output in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about behavior when the tuner is idle, busy, or out of range.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource path front-loaded and the return format immediately after. No wasted words, though the endpoint-path notation is cryptic for an agent unaccustomed to that style.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description does supply the return format, which is the key missing piece. It remains incomplete on the `tuner` parameter and on error/idle-tuner behavior, which an agent needs to call it reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it only implies via `/tuner<n>/` that the parameter is a tuner index. It never states valid indices, whether numbering starts at 0 or 1, or what happens for an invalid tuner.

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?

Names the resource and endpoint (`/tuner<n>/channel`) and states the returned value is the current `<modulation>:<frequency>` or `none`, so the agent knows this reads the channel a tuner is tuned to. It is distinguishable from `hdhomerun_set_channel` by the read semantics, though the 'get' verb is only implied by the endpoint path rather than stated as a sentence.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as `hdhomerun_get_tuner_status`, `hdhomerun_get_channelmap`, or `hdhomerun_set_channel`. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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