discord_get_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by naming thread-specific fields and return formats, but discloses no auth requirements, rate limits, or other operational behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema already provide.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose and returned fields front-loaded. The second sentence about return format is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema, so it is not perfectly waste-free, but the definition remains compact and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only getter, the definition covers what the tool fetches, what fields are included, and how results are formatted. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained in depth, and the main gap is guidance on when to prefer this over the list-channel or list-thread siblings.

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%, so both channel_id and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, format, or constraint details, making the baseline 3 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 and resource: 'Get one channel or thread,' and enumerates the returned fields (type, topic, parent, slowmode, thread archive/lock state). This distinguishes it from bulk siblings in spirit, but it never names alternatives like discord_list_channels or discord_list_threads.

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 phrase 'Get one channel or thread' implies single-item lookup as opposed to listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the contrast with list-style siblings.

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