get_agent_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: credentials are never returned, which tells the agent the response is sanitized. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape, so not a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result contents, followed by usage framing and a sibling pointer. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: enumerated channel types plus the note that credentials are excluded. Read-only safety is covered by annotations. Only the 'mode' compact/full behavior and agentId are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 only 50%: the 'mode' enum is well documented in the schema, but 'agentId' has no description anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required ID beyond the implicit notion of 'an agent'. The scoping language does clarify what channels the result covers, but that is response content rather than parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (channels connected to an agent), then enumerates the channel types returned: WhatsApp numbers, Facebook pages, and Instagram when linked. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_channel_connect_link or get_whatsapp_ai_rules.

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?

Gives explicit use cases ('is my WhatsApp / Instagram connected?' and confirming a connection after a connect link) and routes the agent away for a related-but-different need: 'For WhatsApp reply rules use get_whatsapp_ai_rules.' Both when-to-use and an alternative are spelled out.

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