List notification channels

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 100-item cap, the alerting semantics of verified+active vs. unverified vs. inactive, the 404 on binding an inactive or unknown id, and the clarification that email is not a channel. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loads what the tool is and why before enumerating fields, and every sentence carries information. The email aside is slightly tangential but it preempts a plausible agent mistake, so it still earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: id, type (with the full enum), label, is_verified, is_active, destination_hint, plus the meaning of each status flag. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline for parameterless tools this is a 4. The description instead spends its budget on return-value semantics, which is the right trade.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the organization's notification channels') and immediately explains the reason to call it: to obtain the ids that channel_ids of monitors and heartbeats take. That framing distinguishes it from every sibling list_* tool, which list monitors, incidents, tags, etc.

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?

Gives a clear purpose-driven context (resolve ids for binding to monitors/heartbeats) and explicitly closes the loop on creation: 'Channels are added only in the dashboard,' telling the agent there is no create tool to reach for. It does not name alternative siblings, but none are genuinely substitutable for this call.

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