infomaniak_get_kchat_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'admin inspection' context but no additional behavioral details such as pagination or required permissions. No contradiction exists.

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 one succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler words or redundant information.

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?

As a simple read-only getter with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It does not explain return structure (handled by output schema) but is sufficient for a basic retrieval tool. Could mention what kind of channel info is returned, but not necessary.

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 fully documents the single parameter with a clear description ('kChat channel id'), so the schema covers semantics. The description adds no further parameter context, but given 100% coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get), the resource (one kChat channel), and the context (for admin inspection). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying 'one channel'. The phrase 'for admin inspection' also clarifies intended use.

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 use when inspecting a specific kChat channel but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_kchat_channels or get_kchat_channel_moderation. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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