list_circle_member_channels

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the returned fields (channel, status, verified_at) and the security-relevant constraint that an identifier is NEVER returned (SEC-PM-006). It does not cover pagination or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded blocks: the purpose and return-shape note first, then the access prerequisite. Every sentence carries weight, and the critical security note is prominent rather than buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return fields and the identifier exclusion, and it documents the auth prerequisite. Together with the 100%-covered schema, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only pagination/edge-case behavior is missing.

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% and both parameters (id as Circle ID, member_id as Member ID) are fully documented with patterns. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: list a Circle member's channels. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_circle_members, add_circle_member_channel, or remove_circle_member_channel without opening the schema. It stops short of naming those siblings 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?

Provides real usage guidance on the access path (requires a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY and restart, and start_login does NOT open this tool), which is valuable. However, it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as list_circle_members or list_circles.

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