run_per_channel_abe

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that ChannelExtraction writes named temporary views, ABE subtracts its model in place and discards it, and all opened views are closed afterwards, including side effects on the target view.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core operation, the second explains the intermediate and cleanup behavior, and the third clarifies default handling. No filler 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?

For a multi-step stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full pipeline, temporary view names, in-place mutation, model disposal, cleanup, and defaults, leaving no critical operational gap for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that both tolerance and poly_degree apply to every channel and that omitted values follow PixInsight defaults, but this mostly echoes the schema's existing 'omitted = PixInsight default' notes rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it runs ABE on the R, G, and B channels of a color view and recombines them. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling run_abe by explaining the per-channel workflow.

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 clearly states the context: a color view, processed per-channel rather than whole-view. It references run_abe for default behavior, giving a useful point of comparison. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives as exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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