list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation ('lists') and scopes the result to the authenticated user's subscriptions, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, whether archived channels are included, or any permission requirements beyond authentication. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without any wasted wording. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, well-documented schema, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and the scope. Minor gaps exist (e.g., return format, inclusion of archived channels), but they are not critical for a basic listing operation.

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 the single parameter company_id is fully documented. The description's phrase 'in a company' aligns with the parameter but does not add additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 verb 'lists', the resource 'channels', and the scope: those the authenticated user is subscribed to in a company. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_channels (search) and get_channel_info (single channel), as it is a comprehensive listing of subscribed 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 gives clear context: use this to list all channels a user is subscribed to within a specific company. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over search or join operations.

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