list_archived_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation ('List all archived channels') but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or side effects. The schema documents limit/offset, but the description adds no additional context about what the response contains or how pagination works. For a standard list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence ('List all archived channels') with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for a basic list operation. However, it does not explain the return structure or any nuances about what 'all' means with pagination, so it leaves some gaps for the agent.

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%, with both 'limit' and 'offset' clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 'List all archived channels' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('archived channels'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_channels' (active channels) and 'get_archived_channel' (single archived channel). The scope is clear and 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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to list all archived channels. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using 'list_channels' for active channels or 'get_archived_channel' for a single archived channel. The context is clear but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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