list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects. The description only restates the basic purpose without adding behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No fluff or redundancy—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so return structure is covered. However, the description does not clarify the behavior when guild_id is null (which could mean listing across all servers), leaving a meaningful gap for a parameter that is optional.

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 has one parameter (guild_id) with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'in a server' hints at the parameter but does not explain its name, type, or what happens when it is null/default. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 action (list), resource (channels), scope (in a server), and specifies the fields returned (names, types, categories, topics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guild_info (server metadata) and channel mutation tools.

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 usage is implied: it's used to list channels in a server. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_guild_info) or when not to use it (e.g., when needing a single channel's details).

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