List channel sets

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

The description adds behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: it reveals the payload fields ('id, name, and channelIds') and ordering ('ordered by name'). For a stateless read-only list with no parameters, this is sufficient transparency; it doesn't discuss pagination or errors, but those are relatively minor.

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 short sentences each add information: what the resource is, what the response contains, and when to choose the tool. No filler or 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?

A zero-parameter read-only list is fully specified by the combination of annotations, the empty schema, and a description that states return shape and ordering. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description reinforces that the tool takes no inputs simply by being a list operation with no param discussion, and no additional parameter guidance 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'List saved channel sets' — and defines the resource as 'channel groupings for one-click multi-channel targeting.' It also names the return fields (id, name, and channelIds), which distinguishes it from list_channels and other siblings.

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?

'Use this when the user wants their saved channel groups (channel sets)' gives a clear, actionable trigger condition. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list_channels, so it stops short of a full 5.

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