get_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it's a GET request. It doesn't discuss pagination, error behavior, or what happens if the device ID is invalid, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 succinct, with the main statement front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and argument definition. No redundant information. It could benefit from structured formatting, but it's efficient.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. The description is adequate for a simple read operation with one parameter. However, it doesn't provide context about what 'channels' represents in this domain, nor does it mention any variations or edge cases. For a low-complexity tool with annotations, this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Args: device_id: The ID of the device' clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type/title. However, it's terse and doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples.

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 'Get a device's channels' with the explicit endpoint. It identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id (which fetches the device itself) and get_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_channels (DVR channels), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for media grabber devices specifically, nor does it contrast with DVR channel retrieval or other channel-related tools. No exclusions or contextual cues are offered.

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