get_channel

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency by noting the response includes categories and heading content, which is beyond the 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?

The description is brief, well-organized, and free of unnecessary detail. The parenthetical about included content and the workspace_id guidance are both valuable and concise.

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 simple read operation with no output schema or enums, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, the ID-based lookup, and the source for workspace_id. Minor missing detail about obtaining channel_id is not critical.

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 description explicitly explains workspace_id and how to obtain it, and 'by ID' conveys the role of channel_id, though channel_id itself gets no dedicated explanation or format details.

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 the action ('Get full channel details by ID') and the resource ('channel'), and distinguishes this tool from get_channel_by_name and list_channels by emphasizing retrieval by ID.

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 use when you have a channel ID and provides guidance for obtaining workspace_id from list_workspaces(), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_channel_by_name or list_channels.

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