list_channels

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

The description adds context about mapping IDs to names, but it omits key behavioral details such as the default filtering via only_used=true (default) and the meaning of profile. Without annotations, these gaps are significant, though the tool is likely read-only.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and includes relevant examples without unnecessary padding.

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, the description covers the main purpose but is incomplete given no annotations or output schema. It doesn't explain return format (beyond mapping), default behavior, or parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and defaults.

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%; the description does not explain the 'profile' or 'only_used' parameters. It only hints at channel names, which concerns output, not parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: listing OSCAR-recorded data channels and mapping numeric IDs to human-readable names. It includes specific examples (AHI, Pressure) and is distinct from siblings like list_profiles or get_daily_summaries.

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 use when needing channel names or interpreting numeric IDs. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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