xr18_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 implies a read-only operation through 'List' and discloses what's included, which is the key behavioral trait for a list tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness, doesn't warn about potentially large responses from enumerating all strips, and doesn't clarify what happens for channels with no current fader state. For a simple read-only enumeration this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core action and return content; the second sentence efficiently enumerates the channel categories. The purpose is front-loaded and every word 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?

This is a simple parameterless tool with an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values — the schema covers that. The description covers what is included and the unit of the fader levels (dB). The only minor gap is a lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling listing/reading tools, but for a zero-parameter enumeration tool this is essentially 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the (parameterless) call will return — every named source strip with fader level in dB — and enumerating the channel types covered. There is nothing more a description needs to do for a no-parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('List') tied to a concrete resource ('every named source strip') and names the return content (fader level in dB). It enumerates the exact scope ('regular channels, AUX, FX returns, monitor buses, FX send masters, LR, and DCAs'), which makes it distinct from siblings like xr18_read_meters (meter values) and xr18_get_fader_db (single fader). An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening any schema.

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 tool's purpose and scope are clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it (enumerate all strips) versus single-channel siblings like xr18_get_fader_db or xr18_channel_set_fader. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or gives an exclusion like 'use xr18_get_fader_db for a single fader' or 'use xr18_read_meters for meter data.' The guidance is implied by the naming convention rather than stated.

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