get_channel_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content (config, inputs, targets, jobs) and a parameter constraint, but fails to mention behavioral traits like being read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is likely non-destructive but this is not stated.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, listing what is included. The second adds a critical parameter constraint. No extraneous 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 tool that retrieves full details of a single channel, the description covers the purpose, included components, and a key parameter constraint. No output schema exists, so the agent must infer return shape from descriptions, but the list provides reasonable guidance. Minor gap: not explicitly stating that the tool is read-only.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to appUuid by clarifying it must be the app UUID, but does not explain channelId. With 2 parameters, only one gets meaningful context. This provides some added value but not full compensation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full detail of a single transcoding channel', listing included components (config, inputs, targets, jobs). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_channels (lists summaries) and action tools (start/stop/restart).

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 mentions that appUuid must be the app UUID, providing a usage constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_channels for summary, get_app_detail for app-level info). No exclusions or when-not scenarios are stated.

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