list_channels

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds the sort order and, importantly, the truncation contract ('when truncated is true there is more than was returned'). No output schema exists, so surfacing the envelope shape and the truncation warning is genuinely valuable behavioral 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?

Front-loaded '[READ]' tag, then a compact Args block, then the return envelope. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor cost is the somewhat formal multi-section layout for a one-parameter 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key unknowns: parameter semantics, sort order, envelope shape, and truncation semantics. It omits per-channel field details, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 carry the burden, and it does: 'target' is explained as a RabbitMQ target name from config, optional, defaulting when omitted. It could be more specific about valid target sources, but it covers optionality and meaning well.

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?

States a specific verb (list), resource (channels), and scope (those with unacked/prefetch pressure), plus an ordering rule (most unacked first). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling list tools like list_queues and list_connections.

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 pressure-focused framing implies a troubleshooting scenario, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_queues, list_connections, or the rabbitmq_queue_backlog_rca sibling, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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