List Bot Channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that it lists channels including primary and secondary connections, suggesting a read operation. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or return format details. The description is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and specifies the resource and scope without unnecessary 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists (WhatsApp channels), for which entity (bot), and the connection types (primary and secondary). It could mention the nature of the return value but overall is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for botId. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list), resource (WhatsApp channels connected to a bot), and scope (including primary and secondary connections). It distinguishes from sibling tools like neuron_add_bot_channel, neuron_remove_bot_channel, and neuron_list_channels by focusing on bot-specific channels.

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 implies usage when you need to see channels for a specific bot, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like neuron_list_channels or compare with other listing tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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