uvw_get_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific return semantics (channel indices) but does not mention error handling, edge cases, or performance. With annotations present, this is adequate context.

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 sentences in a bilingual format, with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the bilingual presentation is efficient.

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 query tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns. It lacks details on error conditions or format of the channel list, but these are minor for such a straightforward operation.

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% and the schema already explains that objects is a list of names and that omitting it uses the current selection. The tool description repeats this information without adding extra meaning, so it matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Report') and resource ('UV map channels'), and explicitly says it returns the supported channel indices. It clearly distinguishes from sibling UV tools like uvw_map, uvw_unwrap, and uvw_quick_peel, which perform modifications rather than queries.

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 clarifies that omitting the objects parameter uses the current selection, giving a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the query nature is evident and the selection behavior is useful guidance.

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