client_getChannelByInviteCode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation ('Get channel by invite code') without revealing whether it is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or if any side effects occur. The word 'get' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it is more of a title than a helpful description, sacrificing depth for brevity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., channel object, ID, or error). It does not. It also lacks information about edge cases, such as invalid invite codes or the need for an active session. The tool is simple, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (sessionId and inviteCode) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters or their relationships, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('channel by invite code'), which directly matches the tool name. It distinguishes itself by specifying the lookup key ('invite code'), which separates it from generic channel listing tools like client_getChannels, though it does not explicitly contrast with client_getInviteInfo.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the client must be subscribed to the channel, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over client_getInviteInfo or client_getChannels.

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