uad_list_channels

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'List' and mentions 'see the current mix state before changing it,' implying a read-only snapshot. It also discloses that results are grouped by device. However, it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss any potential side effects, though the word 'list' and context make this safe.

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 three focused sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives usage intent, and the third lists exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and exclusions well. However, it completely omits parameter semantics, and the output schema is not described in the text. Given the 0% schema coverage and the need to understand kind and device filters, the description is not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (kind, device, include_hidden). It mentions 'hidden' as a field in the output, but does not connect it to the include_hidden parameter. The defaults exist, but without parameter documentation the agent cannot make informed choices about values.

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 function: 'List every strip across every unit, grouped by device, with name, I/O type, fader, mute, solo, pan, hidden and stereo link.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the 'Not for' clause explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uad_peek_meters and uad_get_inserts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: you need to find a channel by name, or to see the current mix state before changing it.' It also names alternatives with 'Not for: meter levels (uad_peek_meters) or plugin contents (uad_get_inserts),' making it clear when to prefer other tools.

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