get_available_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that results are permission-filtered ('channels the user has access to'). However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, default/limit truncation, ordering, or rate limits, which matters for a list endpoint returning up to 200 items.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource plus scope are front-loaded. It is efficient but very thin for a tool with two filterable parameters.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. An agent can call it correctly, but gets no hint of the return shape (channel objects, ids) or that results may be truncated at the limit.

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% with clear descriptions and bounds for limit and includeGroups, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Get list of') and resource ('available channels and groups') with an access scope ('user has access to'). It separates itself conceptually from message-oriented siblings like get_recent_messages and search_messages, though it does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The discovery use case (finding channels to then call get_channel_info or get_recent_messages on) is left entirely to inference.

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