get_channel_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating the operation's nature. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive action, and listing the returned categories provides useful behavioral expectations. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by a single args note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter detail-retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. Return values are naturally handled by the output schema, and there is no missing information needed to call the tool correctly.

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 only says channel_id is a string, while the description explicitly explains it accepts a 'Channel UUID or slug'. This adds crucial semantic meaning that the schema lacks, fully compensating for the 0% schema description 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific channel'), and enumerates the returned information: settings, characters, styles, and publish slots. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_channels or get_channel_stats by indicating a focused, single-item detail retrieval.

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 context of retrieving detailed information about one specific channel implies its use case, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent must infer the appropriate selection from the name and wording.

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