arvan_live_get_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the response includes push/pull URLs and stream keys, which is useful behavioral context, but no details on error handling, pagination, or rate limits.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource. Could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for return values), but highly concise.

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 (one param, no output schema), the description adequately states purpose and return content. However, it omits details like error cases (e.g., channel not found) and authentication needs, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%. The parameter 'channel_id' is not described in the description. The name implies purpose, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is inferred from the schema.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'live channel', and specifies what is included (push/pull URLs and stream keys). It uniquely identifies this tool's purpose among siblings like arvan_live_create_channel, arvan_live_delete_channel, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like arvan_live_list_channels. The description implies usage when you have a channel ID, but no when-not-to-use or contrast with sibling tools.

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