get_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details of a specific channel,' which implies a safe read but does not explain what 'details' includes, whether authentication is required, what happens on not-found, or the response structure. This is minimal and leaves most behavior opaque.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise, though it could have included more contextual guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter. The description does not specify what 'details' are returned, nor does it clarify whether this is for regular channels as opposed to VAST or archived variants. Given the large number of channel-related sibling tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', described as 'Channel ID'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 'Get details of a specific channel' clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('a specific channel'). It is unambiguous about the primary action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'vast_get_channel' or 'get_archived_channel', which are also channel detail retrievers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., archived channels) or direct the agent to related tools such as 'vast_get_channel' or 'get_channel_zone_assignment'. The intended context is left entirely implicit.

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