channels_get

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral details: name is null for DMs, position/parent_id are absent for threads and DMs, and topic is raw user-controlled data that is fenced in text responses. These edge cases go beyond the annotations and help the agent predict response variations.

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 compact and well-organized with bold section headers (Purpose, When to use, Returns). Every sentence adds useful information, and the return format is presented clearly without fluff. It is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains not only what the tool returns but also the conditional presence of fields and the handling of raw topic data, covering potential edge cases an agent would need.

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 has full description coverage for channel_id ('Target channel ID'), and the parameter is a simple ID. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter itself, but none is needed given the schema coverage and simplicity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full metadata for a single Discord channel.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like channels_list (plural listing) and messages_get (messages), and the emphasis on 'single' narrows the operation scope.

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 'When to use' section explicitly identifies the context: 'inspect topic, slowmode, nsfw of a known channel.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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