get_channel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and lists the returned data, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. This is acceptable for a simple getter, but lacks the depth that annotations would normally provide.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and the three pieces of information retrieved. There is no superfluous text, making it efficient and clear.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and the data returned. It would be more complete if it mentioned potential errors or prerequisites, but the tool's simplicity makes the description adequate overall.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the channel_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should compensate for the schema's lack of context, such as where to obtain a channel_id or its format, but it does not.

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 data for a specific payment channel: status, deposit amount, and remaining balance. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_channels or get_balance by focusing on a single channel's detailed state.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_channels or get_balance. The context of 'specific payment channel' implies usage for channel-level details, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer.

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