infomaniak_list_kchat_team_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns. It adds the detail that both public, private, and deleted channels can be listed, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 short sentences with no redundant information, front-loaded with the action. Highly efficient.

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 operation with a small input schema and an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the scope, and a use case. No significant information is missing.

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 has 50% coverage; team_id is minimally described while visibility is only an enum. The description explains that the tool lists public, private, or deleted channels, effectively clarifying the visibility parameter, but team_id remains underdescribed. It partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 action (List), the resource (channels for one kChat team), and the scope (public, private, or deleted). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_kchat_channels by specifying team-scoped listing.

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 a use case ('admin inventory and channel governance') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage context but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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