prtg_get_channel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the response covers and how the include parameter changes the returned sections, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, pagination, or access requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and includes a practical hint about where to find channel IDs. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers what will be returned, how to identify a channel, and how to request additional sections. It could be more explicit about read-only semantics or failure cases, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds a little extra meaning by explaining that IDs come from other tool results and mentioning 'additional settings sections', but it does not substantially go beyond the schema.

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 identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('metrics and settings of a single channel on a sensor by ID'), and the main fields returned ('units, limits, current value'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the channel-level scope is distinctive enough to separate it from the other getters.

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 description gives useful context by stating that channel IDs come from prtg_get_sensor_data and prtg_get_sensor results, which tells the agent where to obtain the required id. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the source hint effectively implies the proper workflow.

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