channels_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful output-format fact (CSV), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor and limit parameters, nor what the CSV contains column-wise.

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?

Two terse sentences, no waste, and the resource scope is front-loaded. The brevity is under-specification rather than padding, but the dimension is about structure and economy, which it does well.

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, but for a 3-parameter paginated list tool the description omits anything about cursor/limit usage or pagination. An agent could invoke it without knowing it is paginated at 100 per page.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: limit and cursor are undocumented anywhere, and channel_types is only explained by deferring to another tool's semantics ('as in channels_list'), forcing a lookup.

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?

States a specific resource with a clear scope qualifier: 'conversations you are a member of', which distinguishes it from the broader channels_list. The verb is only implied (list) but the noun and scope make the purpose 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 membership scoping implies when to use it versus channels_list, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is given. The agent must infer the distinction from the scope phrase alone.

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