Show Channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful auth context beyond annotations: required permission scopes and delegated-token behavior. It also confirms 'Read-only account operation,' consistent with readOnlyHint. It does not describe error behavior or return format, but the auth detail is valuable.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by permission details. The permission block is somewhat heavy with code fences, but every part is relevant to invoking the tool. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, though the auth section could be tightened.

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-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required permissions, and read-only nature. It does not explain what a Channel contains or behavior when the hashedId is invalid, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions the hashedId as the identifier but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 and resource: returns the Channel associated with the hashedId. It clearly identifies a single-resource retrieval operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like list_channels or get_channel_episode, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a prerequisite: an API token with the 'Read all folder and media data' permission, and mentions delegated token permissions. It does not state when to use this tool versus list_channels or other retrieval alternatives, leaving alternative selection to inference. This is implied usage context rather than explicit when-to-use guidance.

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