list_channels

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 states the tool lists channels and returns specific data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, pagination handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does, the required input, and the output structure, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It covers the purpose and return data, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'teamId' documented as 'Team ID'. The description adds value by contextualizing this as 'a specific Microsoft Team', but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or validation rules beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('List all channels') and resource ('in a specific Microsoft Team'), and specifies the return data ('channel names, descriptions, types, and IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_teams' by focusing on channels within a team, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other channel-related tools like 'get_channel_messages'.

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 usage by specifying 'in a specific Microsoft Team' and the required 'teamId' parameter, suggesting it's for retrieving channel information within a team context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_teams' or 'get_channel_messages', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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