Get bot status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming exactly what status fields come back (joined, muted, language, name), which is meaningful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It does not cover auth requirements or the fallback behavior of the channel parameter, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the returned-field list. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the field list an agent would otherwise lack, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only gap is the absence of guidance on the optional channel parameter's fallback and no routing to related read tools.

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 100% and the single 'channel' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the SE_CHANNEL_ID fallback. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (the StreamElements chat bot's status on the channel) and enumerates the exact fields returned: joined state, muted state, language, name. That makes it clearly distinct from the mutation siblings (bot_join, bot_mute, bot_set_language) to any agent scanning the list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite/caveat, and no reference to alternative tools such as channels_get or users_channels. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'status'. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to bot_join/bot_mute.

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