get_channel_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'Optional channel UUID or slug' discloses the accepted input format, but the description does not state what happens when channel_id is omitted, any permissions needed, or data freshness 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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the Args line provides the one critical parameter detail without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of clarity about the behavior when channel_id is omitted, but the output schema covers return-value expectations, so this is not a major deficiency.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only declares the parameter as a nullable string. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that channel_id can be a UUID or slug and is optional, which goes beyond the raw schema and reduces ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('channel performance statistics, KPI summaries, and total video counts'). It semantically distinguishes this from the sibling get_channel_details by focusing on performance/KPI data rather than generic channel details.

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 implies the tool should be used when channel performance/KPI data is needed, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_channel_details or any other sibling. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or when-not-to-use guidance.

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