list-channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the default filtering behavior (active-only) and the full set of returned channel attributes, which helps the agent predict the response shape.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the default behavior is stated early, and the optional toggle and return fields are packed efficiently into a compact, readable description.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: scope, default behavior, optional parameter effect, and return contents. No significant gap remains.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mostly reiterates the includeArchived default behavior rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List channels in a workspace.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from workspace/user/thread-focused siblings and adds useful scope ('in a workspace') plus the return fields, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 gives clear usage context: it lists active channels by default and explains when to set includeArchived to true. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but no other sibling tool appears to list channels, so the primary usage decision—whether to include archived channels—is clearly addressed.

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