List channels

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: channels are listed including categories, and permission overwrites are decoded to permission names. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope, followed by useful detail. 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: one parameter, read-only, no output schema. The description fully conveys the tool's purpose and key output characteristics (includes categories, decoded permissions), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating 'in a guild,' which implies guild_id selects the target guild. However, it does not explicitly describe the lone parameter or its format, relying on the schema's pattern and the parameter name for full clarity.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'every channel in a guild,' explicitly including categories and decoded permission overwrites. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_guilds, list_roles, and get_guild by specifying exactly what is listed and in what scope.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need the full channel list for a specific guild, including categories and permission details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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