it__get_sdi_channel_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that the tool returns configuration details and intentionally does not expose sensitive values such as cert_password, which is useful cautionary context beyond the basic meaning. It does not mention failure modes or environment specifics, but for a zero-parameter read-only getter, the disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, enumerates the returned fields, and adds the critical security caveat about cert_password. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low complexity—no parameters, no annotations, an output schema present—the description provides enough context for a correct call. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what it deliberately withholds. It could additionally state when to call it in a workflow, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a serious gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the default baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter behavior because nothing is required to invoke the 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names a precise resource ('current SDI channel configuration'), then enumerates exactly which fields are returned. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and separates it from the many build/validate/send siblings in the list.

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 this is the tool to call when you need current SDI channel configuration, and the read-only tone makes it unlikely the agent would confuse it with submission or validation tools. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or any stated preconditions or exclusions.

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