infomaniak_get_kchat_channel_moderation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description 'Inspect' aligns with read-only behavior but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No extra details about response handling, errors, or side effects are given, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, clear sentence that fully states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, existing output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description sufficiently communicates the tool's role without needing additional detail on return values or behavior.

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 already describes channel_id as 'kChat channel id.' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any further parameter context or relationships, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 'Inspect the moderation settings for a kChat channel' uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('moderation settings for a kChat channel'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_get_kchat_channel (general channel info) and infomaniak_manage_kchat_channel (which mutates channels).

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 clearly states the context: inspecting moderation settings for a kChat channel. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous. The read-only nature is implied by 'Inspect' and reinforced by annotations, making it clear when to use this tool versus management tools.

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