tvh_audit_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: regional names stay distinct, HD suggestions are name-only hints rather than proof of duplicate programme, and nothing is merged or deleted.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence and each following sentence carries a distinct caveat about how to interpret the report. Slightly fragmented layout, but no wasted text.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: the interpretive caveats about regional names and HD hints. An agent can call it correctly and read the results sensibly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing further the description needs to explain about inputs.

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 specific verb ('Read all channels/services and report') and the exact outputs it produces: duplicate names, HD/SD candidates and problems. This clearly marks it as a diagnostic audit rather than a plain listing, distinguishing it implicitly from tvh_list_channels, though it never names that sibling.

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 diagnostic framing implies when to reach for it (when hunting duplicates or HD/SD issues), and 'No automatic merging, numbering or deletion' signals it is investigation-only versus tvh_plan_channel_merge. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction is given.

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