List channels

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's value-add is the disclosure of what comes back: subscriber identity, non-running channels, and which channel is the caller. It does not explain pagination, ordering, or what a 'channel' or 'not running' means, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, opening on the verb. The trailing list of return fields makes it slightly run-on and reads more like a result spec than an action statement.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return elements but leaves key ambiguities: whether the list is exhaustive or subscriber-filtered, what 'not running' denotes, and the return structure. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey; baseline 4 applies. The description's return-field clause is not a substitute for parameter documentation.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (channels) with an explicit scope qualifier ('that have subscribers'), which separates it from siblings like list_peers and list_tasks. It never names an alternative sibling, so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_peers, peer_status, or subscribe/unsubscribe, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the implicit scope 'channels that have subscribers', which the agent must infer from a return-value clause.

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