list_chop_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether the returned list reflects live or cooked channels, whether the node must be cooked first, or what happens on an invalid path.

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-loaded with the action, and the body is short. The trailing 'Args:' block is largely redundant with the schema and field name, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what is returned (channel names, types, sample data) to be callable with confidence. That information is entirely absent, leaving a real gap for a tool whose primary value is its return shape.

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% for the single parameter. The description only restates 'node_path: CHOP node path,' which is near-tautological with the field name and adds no format, path-syntax, or relative-vs-absolute meaning.

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 gives a clear verb+resource+scope: 'List all channels on a CHOP node.' An agent can distinguish this from create_chop_node or export_chop_to_parm. It doesn't, however, differentiate itself from the likely-overlapping get_chop_data sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_chop_data or get_chop_info, no preconditions (e.g. node must exist/cook), and no mention of alternatives. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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