get_channel

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: include_status triggers a CHSTATUS query that may error if the channel is not running, and the status field is always an object (including on failure) for easier parsing. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose summary followed by a clear Args list. Each line earns its place, and the include_status explanation, while detailed, is necessary for correct use. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema and clear parameter descriptions, the tool is fully specified for correct invocation. The description covers parameter meanings, optional behavior, and a critical parsing guarantee. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains all three parameters, provides concrete examples for qmgr and name, and details the include_status behavior including its failure semantics. This gives the agent full understanding beyond the bare schema types.

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 a specific action (查询/query) on a specific resource (单个通道的定义/single channel definition), and notes an optional extension (附带运行状态). It distinguishes from siblings like list_channels by emphasizing 'single', making the selection obvious.

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: use when querying a single channel definition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_channels for listing or get_queue for queues) or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is present but only implicit.

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