check_channel_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description should cover behavioral traits like read-only nature and response details. It only mentions 'outbound and inbound liquidity' without confirming safety, side effects, or output format. Insufficient for a tool performing a read operation.

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?

A single concise sentence conveys the core purpose without extra words. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring the information (e.g., splitting outbound and inbound), but overall effective.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details on return format and fails to address how this differs from closely related siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds meaning by specifying what is checked (channel balance liquidity), which is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 states 'Check available Lightning channel balance (outbound and inbound liquidity)', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_agent_balance' and 'list_channels' by focusing on channel liquidity, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_agent_balance' or 'list_channels'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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