Get Channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the two-tier resolution behavior and the membership constraint on name-only lookups. It leaves unstated what happens when multiple channels match a name or when no arguments are supplied, which is the main behavioral gap.

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?

Two short paragraphs, resolution strategy front-loaded before the return shape, with a concrete slug example. No filler sentences.

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?

Safety profile comes from annotations and the return shape is already declared by the output schema, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return fields — the listed keys are mild redundancy. The definition is broadly complete, but the edge cases of argument precedence and empty-input behavior are absent for a tool where every parameter is optional.

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 coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters are described in the schema, so the description must carry the load. It defines name as the URL slug and explains the role of team_id/team_name in scoping, but says nothing about precedence (e.g. channel_id vs. name both supplied), mutual exclusivity of team_id/team_name, or the all-null case — meaningful omission given zero required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (channel) plus both resolution keys (ID or name/URL slug). The scope distinction — membership-only search by name alone vs. team-wide lookup with team_id/team_name — makes it unmistakable versus siblings like list_channels or get_channel_posts.

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?

Gives explicit conditional usage: pass channel_id, or name; with name alone only member channels are searched, and team_id/team_name widens it to any channel. It does not name an alternative tool or say when to prefer list_channels over this lookup, so it stops short of full 5.

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