channel_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-only inspection operation and lists the exact channel attributes returned, which is strong transparency for a simple getter. It does not cover error behavior for invalid indices, but that is minor for an info-style tool.

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 compact sentence front-loads the scoping phrase 'one channel' and uses a comma-separated enum of return fields. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name, making it 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 one-parameter getter, the field list provides a useful picture of the return content. However, it is incomplete in a few areas: it never defines the index parameter's base/range, and with no output schema it does not describe the return structure beyond the property names.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the index parameter. It does not explain whether index is zero-based, what its valid range is, or how it relates to channel_count or channel_all, so an agent must infer the parameter semantics from the parameter name alone.

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?

Description states the tool provides detailed information about a single channel and enumerates exactly which properties are returned (name/volume/pan/pitch/color/mute/solo/fx_route/type). The phrase 'one channel' also distinguishes it from the sibling channel_all, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 targeted inspection of one channel, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus channel_all or other channel getters, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied through the word 'one channel'.

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