get_channel_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention required permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or what fields of 'detailed information' will actually be returned.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the purpose clearly and is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter getter tool.

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 is simple and has no nested parameters, so the input side is complete. However, there is no output schema, and the description only says 'detailed information' without specifying what that includes, leaving some ambiguity about the return value for an agent.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter ('Channel ID (e.g., C1234567890)') with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that the information is about a 'specific' channel, but adds no meaningful semantic detail 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 states the action ('get'), the resource ('specific Slack channel'), and the nature of the result ('detailed information'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_channels, which return multiple channels, and get_user_info, which targets a different resource.

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 implies the tool should be used when detailed information about one specific channel is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is understandable but relies on inference rather than direct guidance.

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