get_channels_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. 'Get status and delivery stats' implies a read-only operation, and no warning of side effects is needed since it's clearly a retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose response format, whether partial failures are possible per channel, or any rate-limiting/auth considerations. The return value structure isn't described.

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, well-crafted sentence that packs significant information: what's retrieved (status, configuration, delivery stats), the resource (outreach channels), and an exhaustive enumeration of channel types. Zero wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete regarding scope and purpose. It doesn't have an output schema to detail return values beyond what's named ('status, configuration, delivery stats'), but those hints do provide reasonable expectations. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is nearly complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there's nothing for the description to explain about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output scope rather than inputs.

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 what the tool does: gets the status, configuration, and delivery stats for outreach channels, with an explicit list of channel types (WhatsApp, SMS, push notifications). This differentiates it from the sibling 'update_channel' (which mutates channels) and 'get_channel_status'-like tools. It lacks comparison to 'update_channel' but the verb+resource+detail is specific enough.

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 a read-only query use case for checking channel health/status, which is reasonably clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_channel' or provide exclusions. There's no mention of prerequisites or 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.