List Channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely new context that channel URLs and keys are always redacted in the response. That disclosure materially affects how an agent plans follow-up calls (e.g., it must use testChannel rather than reuse credentials). No pagination or rate-limit behavior is described.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler; the resource definition is front-loaded and the security caveat follows as a useful second beat.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool whose annotations cover safety, and the redaction note is a real addition. However, for a four-parameter listing tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the absence of any guidance on env/region filtering leaves an agent guessing about result scope.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never explains workspaceSlug, appSlug, env, or region. The phrase 'the app's alert rules' hints at app scoping only obliquely, and the env enum filtering semantics are entirely absent.

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 names the concrete resource ('Slack, webhook and PagerDuty destinations the app's alert rules can post to'), which pairs with the verb in the tool name to give a clear purpose and implicitly separates it from createChannel/updateChannel/deleteChannel. It stops short of explicitly stating scope (workspace/env) or naming sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before updateChannel/deleteChannel/testChannel, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. No mention of how env/region narrow the listing.

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