search_channels

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states substring matching and case-insensitivity but omits details about default behavior (e.g., empty query), pagination, or result limits. The existence of an output schema helps but isn't referenced.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and case-insensitivity trait.

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?

Given three parameters with no coverage in the description, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't explained, the description is incomplete. It fails to inform the agent about parameter roles or search behavior details necessary for correct invocation.

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 adds no meaning to the three parameters (query, types, workspace). It does not explain their purpose, defaults, or allowed values, relying entirely on the schema which may be insufficient for the agent.

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 tool performs substring matching against channel names and topics, with case-insensitivity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_channels (which lists all channels) and read_channel (single channel retrieval).

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 implies usage for finding channels by substring, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not contrast with alternatives like search_users or search_messages, leaving some ambiguity.

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