list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the return shape ('types and IDs') but omits whether categories/threads are included, whether the caller needs permissions, or whether results are paginated — meaningful gaps for an unpaginated-sounding list tool.

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 the resource front-loaded. It earns its space, though the trailing 'with types and IDs' could be marginally more informative about the actual return shape.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the return fields at a high level but leaves scope questions (categories, threads, permissions) unanswered.

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 single guildId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its fallback to DISCORD_GUILD_ID. The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'in a server', so the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List all channels in a server') and states the returned fields (types and IDs). It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like list_channels_in_category or find_channel, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_channels_in_category for scoped listings or get_channel_info for a single channel. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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