mq_channel_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results carry RUNNING/RETRYING/STOPPED states and connection counts, but doesn't cover connectivity/permission prerequisites or failure behavior for an openWorld tool.

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?

Two compact clauses with zero filler, and the resource/scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the listing hint.

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 output schema, the description does the right job of naming the returned status values and the connection counts, and the schema carries all parameter detail. It is nearly complete; only execution prerequisites for the openWorld MQ REST call are unstated.

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% and every parameter (qmgr, channel, environment) is documented in the schema, including the 'default: all channels' behavior. The description's 'omit the channel name to list all' merely restates the channel parameter's schema text, adding no syntax or format detail.

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+resource: returns channel status (RUNNING/RETRYING/STOPPED plus connection counts) for a queue manager over MQ REST. It is clearly distinct from the sibling mq_queue_status by resource type, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 clause 'Omit the channel name to list all' gives a concrete usage hint, but nothing states when to prefer this over mq_queue_status or other MQ-related siblings, and there are no exclusion conditions.

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