get_channel_by_name

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description does not add further behavioral details such as side effects, access requirements, or error conditions beyond the annotations.

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, using two short sentences. It gets straight to the point with no fluff or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not mention what 'details' are returned or any additional context like pagination or response format. For a simple get operation, this might be acceptable, but it lacks a fuller picture.

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?

workspace_id is explained clearly with a pointer to list_workspaces(). However, channel_name and hub_profile_username are only described by their names and required status, with no additional context or expected format.

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 channel details') and the specific identifiers used (hub profile username slug and channel name slug). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_channel or list_channels.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the workspace_id explanation showing how to obtain the ID, but no comparison with sibling tools like get_channel or list_channels is provided.

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