List channels

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered without the description. Beyond restating the endpoint path, the description discloses nothing about scope (workspace-level vs account-level), ordering, or whether an empty list is possible.

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 short sentence plus the endpoint reference, with nothing wasted and no burying of key information. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but structurally it is clean and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what to call but not what comes back (channel fields, pagination, ordering). The annotations and empty schema keep the bar low, so this lands at minimum viable rather than inadequate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries all the burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related value could be added here.

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 and resource ('List channels') and even pins the HTTP endpoint, so the operation itself is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as notifications_listRoutes or notifications_listDeliveries, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With three listing siblings in the notifications family, a sentence on when channels (vs routes or deliveries) is the right call would materially help selection.

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