list_channels

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is grouped by layer, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe return format details such as channel count, ordering, or edge cases (e.g., nodes with no channels). With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one efficient sentence plus an Args block that duplicates the schema. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though the Args duplication is slightly redundant.

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 read-only single-parameter tool, the description is adequate. It lacks guidance on when to use it versus sibling inspection tools and does not clarify output structure beyond 'grouped by layer.' Without an output schema or usage guidance, it is minimally complete rather than rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'node' is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter explanation, adding no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'List all channels/layers available at a node's output, grouped by layer.' This is clear and concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like read_node_detail, which may also expose channel information, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance or mention of alternatives. The description does not say when an agent should call list_channels versus read_node_detail or other node inspection tools, leaving routing to inference.

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