list_channels_having_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds slight context by specifying 'calendar events' and 'in a company,' but it does not disclose details like whether the listing is limited to user-scoped channels, what constitutes 'having events,' or the output format. For a read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized with 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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details about return values and filtering semantics, leaving the agent to infer the structure of the response. It is adequate for a simple list but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter company_id, which is documented as 'Company ID' in the schema. The description's mention of 'in a company' adds little beyond the schema and does not clarify parameter syntax or formatting.

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 ('Lists') and the resource ('channels that have calendar events') with company scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_channels (all channels) and list_events (raw events) by focusing on channels with events.

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 when to use this tool (to get channels that have calendar events), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No comparison to list_channels or list_events is provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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