get_channel_id_by_name

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about accepting the optional '#' prefix, but it does not disclose behavior for missing channels, case sensitivity, or which set of channels is searched.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the key formatting exception is given immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, the description omits useful scope information (e.g., whether the lookup covers all channels or only channels the bot has joined) and does not address not-found behavior, which matters for deciding whether to call join_channel first.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does add the important rule that the channel name may be with or without the '#' prefix, which is not present in the schema. It leaves some ambiguity about exact formatting, but for a single required string parameter this is meaningful guidance.

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 ('get') and resource ('channel ID') and identifies the exact input ('channel name'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_channel_history or resolve_user_id, which operate on different resources or return different data.

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 the tool should be used whenever a channel ID is needed from a channel name, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state prerequisites such as whether the channel must be joined. No exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance is provided.

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