list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two operationally important traits: an admin-level authorization requirement and an HTTP-transport-only constraint. It also pre-empts a likely mistake by stating tokens are never returned and pointing to rotate_token for a fresh one.

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 tight sentences with the access restriction front-loaded before the functional detail. Every clause earns its place, including the rotate_token redirect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be restated, and the description covers the authorization and transport caveats an agent must know. It leaves 'active' undefined and says nothing about filtering or ordering, which is a minor gap for a listing tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('list active channels with their role pairs'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also implicitly separates itself from rotate_token by clarifying that tokens are never listed, though it never draws a line against close siblings like channel_status or list_roles.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('ADMIN ONLY (HTTP transport)') and routes the token-recovery use case to rotate_token instead, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over channel_status or list_roles.

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