guild_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (one per line, with ids, types, parent categories, topics), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens if the guild_id is invalid. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that packs in the output format and key fields. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the output looks like and what the parameter means. However, it doesn't clarify whether the output is plain text or JSON, and it doesn't mention any filtering or sorting options. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would help, but it's adequate for a simple tool.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents guild_id. The description adds context that the default server is used if omitted, which is already in the schema's default field. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('The channels of a server') and resource (channels), and specifies the output format (one per line with ids, types, parent categories, topics). It is clear what the tool returns, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, so it loses a point.

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 usage: call this to list channels of a server. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like guild_tree or channel_messages, but the context of sibling tools and the description's focus on channel listing makes the intended use reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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