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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via the word 'List' but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, error conditions, or the exact nature of the returned channels. The minimal phrasing leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: the primary action is front-loaded, and the parameter is listed in a clear format. There is no filler or redundancy, and every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits important context. It does not specify the output format (e.g., a list of strings vs. structured objects), how the node path is resolved, or any edge cases. Additionally, it lacks any relation to sibling CHOP tools, leaving an incomplete picture for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It provides 'node_path: CHOP node path.', which clarifies the parameter's role and type beyond the schema's title 'Node Path'. However, it lacks format specifications (e.g., absolute vs relative path, separators) or any validation notes, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List all channels on a CHOP node.' The verb and object are clear, and it is distinguishable from siblings like get_chop_data which likely return actual data values rather than just channel identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly specify whether it returns channel names or full channel metadata, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_chop_data, create_chop_node, and get_parameter exist, but the description does not mention any conditions or comparisons. An agent has no information to decide if this is the right tool for a given task.

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