mattermost_get_channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the added '唯讀操作' sentence is largely redundant. What does add value is the statement of which fields come back (name, type, archived status), but nothing is said about behavior on an unknown or malformed channel ID.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the lookup and the returned fields, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, disclosing the returned fields makes it nearly self-sufficient. Minor gaps remain around invalid-ID behavior and whether any team context is included.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the only format constraint lives in the pattern field of the schema. The description merely repeats that the input is a channel ID, adding no meaning about expected format or failure modes beyond what the parameter name already conveys.

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 (查詢) and resource (頻道) and even enumerates what is returned (名稱、類型、封存狀態), which distinguishes it from the list-style siblings such as mattermost_list_channels. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops 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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like mattermost_list_channels for discovery. Only the 'lookup by ID' framing implies usage; the agent must infer the rest.

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