List my channels

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 only states ownership and gives no details about pagination, return structure, or side effects (though it is a read operation). This is minimal disclosure, insufficient for the agent to fully understand behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded, containing only the essential scope without verbose filler. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, slightly reducing structure quality.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description states the core purpose but omits return format (e.g., array of channel objects) and pagination behavior. Without annotations or output schema, this leaves gaps, though the simple nature and optional parameters make it somewhat acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does nothing to explain the 'per' and 'page' parameters. It doesn't mention that the list is paginated or how to use these parameters, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's min/max values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource (channels) and scope (owned by the authenticated user), distinguishing it from siblings like arena_get_channel or arena_create_channel. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name/title supplies the 'list' action.

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 clear context that this tool is for listing channels owned by the authenticated user, which helps an agent choose it over arena_get_channel or arena_create_channel. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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