Are.na channel

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral responsibility. It implies a read operation ('metadata') but doesn't explicitly state read-only, safety, or side effects. It also doesn't disclose error behavior or output format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action ('Channel metadata'). No unnecessary words or filler. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter metadata retrieval with no output schema, the description doesn't specify the return format (e.g., a single JSON object) or behavior for invalid ids. It's minimal but may be sufficient for an agent to call correctly. However, with no annotations or output schema, it could offer more clarity on the response shape.

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 schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description of slug or numeric id (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves channel metadata by slug or id, including the description. It clearly names the resource ('channel metadata') and the lookup method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like arena_channel_contents (which likely fetches contents). However, the verb is implicit ('metadata' implies retrieval) rather than explicit like 'get', so it doesn't fully achieve 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention that this is for metadata only, not contents, or any conditions for preferring a slug vs numeric id. The description doesn't reference sibling tools or give exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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