List channels

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior context by stating the returned fields (channel ID, platform, account name, token status), which is especially valuable since no output schema is provided. It does not fully reconcile 'all connected' with the active filter defaulting to true, but that is documented in the parameter schema.

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 tight sentences: what it lists, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no filler, and the action/resource are front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states scope, return fields, and a use case. The only minor gap is not spelling out the active-channel default behavior in the description, but that information is present in the input schema.

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 100% and the active parameter already clearly states filtering behavior and default. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema's documentation.

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 names a specific action ('List') and resource ('connected social media channels'), enumerates platforms, and lists return fields, so an agent can tell this is the channel-listing tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar-looking view_channels sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provides a clear trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to see which social accounts are connected.' It gives no exclusions or alternative-tool routing, but the context is enough for basic selection.

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