List channels

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is covered. The description adds the grouping and filter behavior but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This matches the bar where annotations cover the core safety and description adds some useful context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and listing filter values. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters, well-covered by the schema and read-only annotation. The description explains the return content (grouped by category, with type and topic) sufficiently for an agent to invoke it confidently. Minor gaps like pagination are not critical here.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The type filter is already fully described in the schema with an enum, and the guild parameter is documented in the schema. Description adds no new parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists all channels in a server, grouped by category, with type and topic. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like get_channel, create_channel, or list_events.

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?

It provides clear context that this lists all channels with optional type filtering, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_channel for a single channel or create_channel for adding channels. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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