get-channel

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true) by stating 'get details', implying a read-only operation. However, it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, rate limits) beyond what annotations already convey, achieving a baseline score.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what 'details' are returned or the expected format of the channel name.

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 one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify what the 'name' parameter represents (e.g., channel identifier format or scope), providing no added meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get details for a specific channel' clearly identifies the action (get details) and the resource (channel). It distinguishes this tool from sibling get-* tools like get-connection or get-queue by specifically mentioning 'channel', though it does not specify the context (e.g., RabbitMQ channel).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-connection or get-queue. It lacks information about prerequisites, such as requiring a channel name, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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