scope_channel_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or state side effects. The return list is helpful but the safety profile is not fully clarified.

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 extremely concise: three lines for purpose and return list, plus Args and Transport. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool (one param, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, key return values, parameter meaning, and transport. It lacks guidance on usage context or exclusions but is complete for its scope.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds 'Channel number 1–4', giving a meaning and range beyond the schema's raw integer type. This is sufficient and clear.

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 states 'Get all current settings for a channel', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all current settings'. It lists exact returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scope_configure_channel' (set settings) and 'scope_cursor_info' (cursor-specific).

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 usage via 'in one call' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, relying on agent inference from sibling names.

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