loop_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose output format, pagination, permissions, or error behavior. This provides minimal extra value beyond the tool name.

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 clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. No output schema or annotations exist, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., channel IDs, names, metadata) or any prerequisites. It leaves these details ambiguous for an agent.

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 schema has 100% coverage for teamId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics; it only refers to a 'Loop team' without clarifying what a team ID is or how to obtain it. The parameter meaning is still underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb (list) and resource (channels), scoped to a Loop team. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like loop_teams, which lists teams, and other loop_* tools that perform different actions.

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 (list channels when you need them for a team) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites like obtaining a teamId from loop_teams. Lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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