arvan_live_list_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context—e.g., whether pagination is supported, rate limit considerations, or what data fields are returned. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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?

The description is a single short sentence, achieving conciseness, but it omits critical details. It is not front-loaded with the most useful information; it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., channel IDs, names, status). It does not mention pagination behavior or default per_page limits, making it incomplete for a list 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters (page, per_page), and the description does not explain their meaning or usage. The agent must infer pagination intent, which could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 'List live-streaming channels' clearly states the action (List) and resource (live-streaming channels), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arvan_list_servers or arvan_live_get_channel. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all channels or filtered) which prevents a top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arvan_live_get_channel (for a single channel) or arvan_live_list_inputs. There is no mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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