list_channels

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the [READ] nature, sorting order, return envelope fields, and the truncation behavior, which is important for correct interpretation. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose line, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and front-loads the key information. Every sentence adds value.

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 has only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description's return envelope is essential. It includes the 'truncated' flag semantics, preventing an agent from treating the result as complete. The description is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 provides no description for the 'target' parameter, but the description explains it as the 'rabbitmq target name from config' with instruction to omit for default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of coverage, clarifying both meaning and usage.

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 states it lists channels with unacked/prefetch pressure, ordered by most unacked first. This specific verb+resource+ordering distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queues. The [READ] prefix reinforces the read-only nature.

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 the tool's purpose but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It provides context about the channel list, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools. An agent can infer usage from the description but would benefit from explicit guidance.

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