mkt_channels

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature plus the exact categories of data returned (capabilities, verification levels, channel matrix). It does not cover response shape, size, freshness/caching, or whether the registry is static versus derived from prior runs, which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists its three contents in labeled form, with the read-only qualifier last. Every clause carries information, though the dense jargon (六原语子集, 通道矩阵) assumes familiarity and there is no leading verb to anchor the sentence.

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 zero-param read tool the description covers what the tool contains, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, nothing describes how the result is structured or how an agent should consume the channel matrix, so the definition is adequate rather than complete.

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 defines zero parameters at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the call itself. Per the baseline for 0-param tools this lands at 4; the description does not misuse space on parameter explanation.

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 (a channel registry) and enumerates its three payloads: capability subsets of six primitives, verification tiers (PROVEN/PORTED/UNVERIFIED), and a channel×action matrix with preferred channel and fallback chain. That is specific enough for an agent to know what data it yields. It falls short of 5 because there is no verb (get/list/lookup) and no explicit differentiation from the nearby siblings mkt_channel_venues and mkt_channel_plan.

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?

"只读" (read-only) hints that this is a safe lookup, but there is no statement of when to call it versus mkt_channel_venues, mkt_channel_plan, mkt_capabilities, or mkt_playbooks — all plausible alternatives in the sibling list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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