check_channel_balance

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific details (outbound and inbound liquidity) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description is adequate but leaves clear gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

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 purpose: checking Lightning channel balance, specifying both outbound and inbound liquidity. It uses specific verbs ('check') and resources ('Lightning channel balance'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_channels' or 'get_agent_balance', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_channels' or 'get_agent_balance'. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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