list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), potential 403/422 errors, and describes the response structure. However, it does not mention rate limits or clarify if disabled channels are included beyond noting '開啟的'.

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 well-structured with clear sections (用途, 注意, API, 回傳結構). It is front-loaded and every sentence provides value, avoiding redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, limitations, response structure, and alternative data sources. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context about the response but no param info is needed.

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 all sales channels ('取得商店所有銷售渠道清單'), uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_channel_detail and get_channel_comparison by emphasizing the list-all behavior.

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 includes a dedicated '用途' section explaining when to use (e.g., understanding multi-channel layout, pre-analysis). It mentions potential errors and an alternative source of channel info, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to sibling tools.

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