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 doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication (teams_login) is required, pagination behavior, or what the returned team/channel objects look like. The only behavioral hint is the downstream id compatibility.

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?

One tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. The parenthetical is slightly awkward but conveys real routing information.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the basic return ('teams and their channels') and id interoperability, but omits auth requirements and result structure. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the single optional teamId is documented in the schema as 'Only this team (id from a previous call)'. The description adds nothing about scoping or the id format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List your teams and their channels'), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_chats, list_meetings, and list_messages. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from those list tools, keeping it below a 5.

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 parenthetical explains downstream usage — the channel id it returns works with list_messages and send_message — which implies a discovery/entry-point workflow. However, it never states when to use this versus list_chats or list_messages, nor any prerequisites such as needing teams_login first.

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