list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The 'Returns...' wording and explicit list of output fields (names, IDs, slugs, channelContext, visual styles, aspect ratios, batch/video counts) signal a read-only listing operation and disclose the response content. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple list call.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope, and the second lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clarifies scope ('all channels', 'your account') and enumerates the returned data, leaving no critical gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, consistent with the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all social media channels (workspaces)' belonging to the yzturkey account. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose distinct from get_channel_details, create_channel, and update_channel_settings.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for account-wide enumeration of channels, and the 'all' scope plus zero parameters implies it is not for fetching a single channel's details. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is adequate for an agent to know when to use it.

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