channels_aliases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that the return is a set of observed identity pairings with a concrete example. Beyond that it discloses nothing about scope, pagination, or failure behavior, so the bar set by annotations is only modestly exceeded.

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 core statement is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing transport cruft ('POST /api/kalagh/channels/aliases · gRPC GetPlatformAliases · socket "channels/aliases"') consumes the second half without helping an agent decide or invoke. Structure is acceptable but not clean.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and the pairing example partly does that. But the single parameter is unexplained and there is no usage context, leaving the definition only minimally complete for a channel-scoped read.

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?

There is one required parameter, channelId, whose schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the parameter or explains what channel it refers to, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap. This is below the 3 baseline because coverage is low and the description adds nothing.

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 names the resource ('identity pairings this channel observed') and gives a concrete example (WhatsApp LID ↔ phone JID), which helps an agent understand the payload. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and gives no differentiation from nearby siblings like channels_get or channels_list. Purpose is inferable but not stated as an operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, what prerequisite state is needed, or which alternative to prefer. It is listed among many channel tools with no routing information at all.

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