Get channel

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the exact fields returned (type, topic, category, slowmode, NSFW flag, permission overwrite count), which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or permission requirements, but given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full detail for one channel') and then lists specific return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple single-resource read tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns (detailed fields), which complements the readOnlyHint annotation and the well-documented parameters. No output schema is present, but the description effectively covers return value expectations.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (guild and channel) with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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's function: retrieving full detail for one channel, enumerating specific fields (type, topic, category, slowmode, NSFW flag, permission overwrite count). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from list_channels, which lists channels, and from get_channel_permissions, which focuses on permissions.

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 phrase 'Full detail for one channel' provides clear context that this tool is for fetching details of a single channel, implying it is not for listing channels or for other channel-specific operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'use list_channels for summaries'), so it misses the explicit guidance level of 5.

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