Get Channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes a read operation ('Get detailed information') but does not disclose what constitutes 'detailed information', error handling (e.g., if channel not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could be more information-rich without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has no output schema and no annotations. The description should compensate by explaining what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., channel name, status, participants). It fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's output or its role among siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter documented). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description ('The unique identifier of the channel'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific WhatsApp channel. It uses a verb+resource structure and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list' and 'status' by emphasizing 'detailed information'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters (e.g., get_channel_status).

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 like neuron_list_channels or neuron_get_channel_status. The description implies usage for fetching full details of a single channel, but it lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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