list_my_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds meaningful behavioral context: explains the two counter pairs (with and without thread replies), the semantics of last_viewed_at, and that channels without membership return zeros. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

First sentence immediately states purpose. The description is well-structured with bullet-like formatting for counter pairs. Each sentence provides distinct information, but could be slightly tightened (e.g., merging counter explanations). Still, no wasted words.

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 complexity (multiple counters, read marker, filtering options), the description covers all usage aspects, edge cases, and relations to other tools. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the meaning of counters and how last_viewed_at is used in subsequent calls. It also gives practical values for channel_types. This enriches parameter understanding beyond schema.

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 'List channels you are a member of in a team,' specifying both the resource (channels) and the scope (your memberships). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_public_channels' by saying 'For discovering public channels you haven't joined yet, use list_public_channels.' Verb and resource are precise.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use channel_types to narrow results (with examples), use only_unread=True for unread channels, and explicitly names alternative list_public_channels for channels not joined. This covers when and when not to use the tool.

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