get_channel

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the action of retrieving details and adds no information about return shape, error behavior, permissions, or potential side effects. The mention of threads is mildly useful but does not qualify as substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that communicates the action, target, and input criterion without any redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter get operation, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the word 'details' gives no indication of what fields are returned or what happens for invalid/private channels, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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 100% and the channel_id parameter is already documented as 'The ID of the channel.' The description's 'by its ID' phrase adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Gets details'), a specific resource ('specific Discord channel or thread'), and the lookup method ('by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from listing tools like list_channels and other get tools like get_guild.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you already have a channel or thread ID and need its details. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_channels or get_guild, nor when not to use this tool.

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