kchat_list_channels

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses scope ('public channels', i.e. no private/DMs) and pagination, but says nothing about auth requirements, ordering, total counts, or whether only channels the caller belongs to are returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier and the pagination hint; nothing is wasted. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity also means little substance.

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-optional-parameter read listing with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and pagination concept. It stops short of describing the returned channel shape or ordering, which an agent building on results would benefit from.

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% — page and limit are fully documented with defaults and bounds — so the description only needs to not contradict them. 'With pagination' merely echoes the schema and adds no format or interaction detail.

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 kChat public channels') and adds the pagination aspect. It is implicitly distinct from siblings, which are all message-, reaction-, or user-oriented, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with listing variants.

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 phrase 'with pagination' hints at how to page through results, and 'public channels' scopes what is returned. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g. get_channel_history for message content), leaving the agent to infer.

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