Get Channel Status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe. It also lacks information on permissions or side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about basic behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is not verbose, but could be slightly improved by explicitly noting the return value.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clearly state what the tool returns (the status string). It only hints at possible values but does not confirm the return structure. Prerequisites (e.g., valid channel ID) are also omitted, making it incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is documented as 'The unique identifier of the channel'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, such as format or source of the id, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's action ('Get'), resource ('WhatsApp channel'), and attribute ('current session status'). It mentions sample statuses (e.g., connected, disconnected), distinguishing it from sibling tools like neuron_get_channel or neuron_get_channel_events.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., neuron_get_channel, neuron_start_channel_session). There is no discussion of prerequisites or context for selection.

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