goldhold_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, which is useful, but the description does not clarify what the returned channels look like, whether any access restrictions apply, or what 'communication channels' includes. This is minimally transparent for a zero-parameter 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 a single, grammatically complete sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word is meaningful and the core action and object are stated directly.

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?

The description is adequate for a trivial zero-parameter listing tool, but it does not explain the expected return format or how the channels relate to sibling operations like sending messages. There is no output schema to fill that gap, so the agent must infer the response 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics by having none. The description does not need to describe parameters, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('communication channels available in the GoldHold network'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool names, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related tools such as goldhold_send or goldhold_inbox. The description states only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings.

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