get_channel_influence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (gets relationships) but provides no information about read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that communicates the core purpose. However, it is slightly vague and could be expanded with key details without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the return value looks like and any constraints. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information about what to expect. The tool's complexity (coordination detection) is not elaborated, making it incomplete.

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 input schema has full description coverage (100%) for the only parameter 'channel_id', which is described as 'Channel ID' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves channel-to-channel forward relationships with coordination detection, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_channel_network' or 'get_influence_network'.

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 for forward relationships and coordination detection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any when-not-to-use advice. No sibling differentiation is offered beyond the inherent meaning of the name.

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