discord_get_channel

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch details' but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, has rate limits, or returns error types. The mention of 'rate limit' in the examples is ambiguous—it could refer to channel settings or API constraints. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch details about a single channel') and follows with specific examples. There is no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (fetching channel details from an external service), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and hints at return data but lacks behavioral details, error handling, and explicit parameter guidance. This leaves gaps that could hinder effective tool use in varied contexts.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly mention the channel_id parameter, but implies it by referring to 'a single channel'. However, it adds semantic context by listing the types of details fetched (e.g., name, type, permission overwrites), which helps the agent understand what information will be returned, partially offsetting the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'fetch' and the resource 'details about a single channel', with examples of specific attributes like name, type, and permission overwrites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_list_channels (which lists multiple channels) by specifying 'single channel', but does not explicitly contrast with other read tools like discord_get_message or discord_get_member.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel access), compare to discord_list_channels for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases like checking channel settings before modifications. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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