list_channels

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds the filter capability but lacks additional behavioral context like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the key optional filter.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks details on pagination (count, offset) and the distinction between public and other channel types. While the output schema may document return values, the description should guide usage of all parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the 'query' parameter (filters by name substring). It does not mention 'count' or 'offset', leaving their semantics unclear. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but is insufficient.

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 lists public channels, distinguishing it from siblings like list_dms, list_groups, and list_joined_channels. The verb 'list' and resource 'public channels' are specific and actionable.

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 usage for listing public channels but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_joined_channels or list_groups. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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