Fl Channels

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

The description indicates a listing operation, which strongly implies no side effects, but there are no annotations and no explicit statement about behavior such as return shape, channel order, or errors. The read-only nature is only implicit.

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 concise sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the relevant attributes. No filler or redundant information is present.

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-parameter read-only listing, the description gives enough context about the returned channel attributes. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether all channels are always returned or if there is any filtering, but that is not essential for the basic call.

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?

The tool declares zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics that need clarification; the empty input schema fully covers the calling contract.

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 explicitly names the verb 'List' and the resource 'channels', and enumerates the returned fields (index, name, type, colour, volume, etc.). This clearly identifies it as a read-only channel query and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fl_channel_set.

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 verb 'List' implies this should be used for querying channel data, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools such as fl_channel_steps or fl_channel_set. No alternative tool is named.

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