list_circle_member_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an important security behavior (identifiers are never returned, citing SEC-PM-006) and the authentication requirement. It stops short of describing error conditions or response shape, but covers the key behavioral traits for a read-only list operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the most important return limitation and the access prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, what is never returned, and how to enable access. The explicit return fields partially compensate for the lack of an output schema.

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 input schema already documents both required parameters (id and member_id) with descriptions and validation patterns, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('List a Circle member's channels') and the specific resource. It also adds the distinctive return-scope detail (channel metadata only, never an identifier), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_circle_members or add_circle_member_channel.

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 gives explicit access context: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and start_login does not enable this tool. It provides a clear precondition and one exclusion, though it does not directly compare against other circle-related list tools.

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