list_chat_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it lists channels with specific fields and mentions pagination. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is accurate but minimal for a listing tool.

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 two sentences: purpose first, then usage context. It is concise with zero wasted words, 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 no output schema, the description hints at the return structure (id, name, type, visibility) and pagination. For a simple listing tool, this covers necessary context without being verbose.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for pagination parameters ('cursor'/'limit') and implies 'team_id' refers to a workspace, but does not elaborate beyond the schema descriptions. Overall adequate but not exceptional.

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 lists chat channels in a workspace, specifying the returned attributes (id, name, type, visibility). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_chat_channel by being a list operation, and explicitly mentions its use for discovering channel_id before reading/sending 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 provides clear usage context: 'Use to discover a channel_id before reading or sending messages.' It also notes pagination via cursor/limit. It does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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