List conversation channels

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it mentions 'optional filters' that are not supported by the input schema, which is misleading. It also adds no meaningful behavioral context such as return format, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 names the action and resource, with examples. It is concise, though 'if needed' is filler and the unsupported 'filters' claim slightly detracts from precision.

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 the simplicity of the tool (read-only, 3 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. It lacks explicit return-value details and pagination behavior, and it does not differentiate itself from similar list tools. Still, it provides enough to understand the basic purpose.

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 schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'sorting if needed' which aligns with the sort parameter, but the 'filters' mention is unsupported and adds no real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a list of conversation channels and provides concrete examples (email, live chat, forms, WhatsApp), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ListConversationInboxes or RetrieveChannelDetails. The mention of 'optional filters and sorting' is slightly overreaching since no filter parameter exists, but the core purpose is clear.

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 when to use the tool (to get a list of channels) and mentions optional sorting, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The absence of any alternative guidance or exclusions keeps this at the 'implied usage' level.

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