channels_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the CSV output format, the comma-separated multi-value semantics of channel_types, and the case-insensitive substring matching for query. However, it omits pagination behavior despite a cursor parameter existing.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the output format and key parameter semantics come first. It is dense and terse rather than verbose, though the fragment style is slightly cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 6-parameter read tool, the description covers the required field and filtering/sorting well but is silent on pagination (cursor) and result limits, leaving a modest gap.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain channel_types, query, query_targets, and sort semantics. It leaves limit and cursor entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states the resource (workspace channels) and the output form (CSV), making the operation recognizable as a list/query tool. It distinguishes itself implicitly from channels_me (singular) and conversations_history (message history) by scoping to channel enumeration with filtering, though the verb itself is only implied.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as channels_me, conversations_search_messages, or conversations_history, all of which appear in the sibling set. The agent must infer selection conditions without help.

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