get_channel_tcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Query'), but it does not disclose prerequisites such as an active TCP connection, behavior on invalid channel, side effects, or error handling. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, front-loading the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits any context about connection requirements or relationship to the TCP adapter setup, making it only minimally complete. It is adequate but lacks broader operational context.

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 has a single parameter 'channel' with an enum, and the description's mention of 'a channel configuration' vaguely ties to it, but the description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already shows. With schema description coverage at 0%, it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter context.

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 the specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'channel configuration', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_channel_tcp or get_acquisition_status_tcp. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify scope, so it falls 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 implies this tool is for reading channel settings, and the sibling configure_channel_tcp implies that tool is for writing, but no explicit guidance is provided about when to choose this over other query tools or what prerequisites (e.g., connection) are needed. Usage is only implied by the verb and noun phrase.

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