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 discloses that only 'active' channels are listed and that counts may be included, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('List all active channels') and compactly describes the optional parameters. 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?

With no output schema, the description confirms a list of channels but does not detail the return format (e.g., channel names, attributes) or mention pagination/limits. Given the tool's simplicity and optional parameters, the description is mostly complete but could benefit from one clarifying phrase about response shape.

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 coverage is 100% — both parameters (info, prefix) have descriptions, including examples. The description rephrases these options but adds little beyond the schema's own text. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List all active channels in your Pusher app', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_channel_info (which targets a single channel) by emphasizing the listing of all channels. The mention of optional filters and counts adds scope.

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 explains the tool's context ('List all active channels') and options ('filter by prefix', 'request subscription or user counts'), but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives. It implies use for broad listing but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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