List connected channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to channels connected to this server, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no channels are connected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates the shape of the result (channel IDs, titles, default-channel flag) or how an empty list should be interpreted.

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 the baseline is 4. The description's scope phrase ('connected to this server') is the only semantic added, and there is no parameter surface left to explain.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('YouTube channels connected to this server'), which is enough to separate it from singular reads like get_channel and from mutation siblings like connect_channel. It does not explicitly position itself against list_my_videos or auth_status, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., auth_status for connection health, get_channel for per-channel detail). An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the phrase 'connected to this server'.

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