get_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious action 'List' without mentioning permissions, rate limits, whether private channels are included, or any other behavioral details. This is a minimal transparency gap for a read-only operation.

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 with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose clearly.

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, the description is adequate but not complete. Since there is no output schema, it does not hint at the return format (e.g., channel names, objects, metadata). This is a gap, though not severe 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 0% (server_id has no description). The phrase 'in a specific Discord server' adds some context for the parameter but does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter details.

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 tool's action ('List all channels') and its scope ('in a specific Discord server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_servers, read_messages, and send_message.

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 that a server_id is required but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or how to obtain the server_id (e.g., via get_servers). Usage context is only inferred.

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