list_channels

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond it by disclosing output redaction: headers masked as ***, Slack/Discord/Teams webhook URLs truncated after the host, and secrets never returned. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express and it prevents an agent from expecting usable webhook credentials.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose first, then domain context, then return-value redaction warnings. Nothing is repeated and the most decision-relevant line (what you actually get back) is not buried.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it covers the most consequential aspect (masked secrets and truncated webhook URLs). It does not enumerate the returned fields (id, name, type, config), which leaves a modest gap for a listing endpoint.

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 disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, consistent with a no-argument list call.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List notification channels'), which immediately separates it from get_channel, create_channel, update_channel, delete_channel and test_channel in the sibling set. The follow-up sentence also positions channels correctly relative to list_triggers and list_escalation_policies.

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?

Explains the domain relationship that motivates calling this tool: channels alone are inert, so an alert only reaches one via an alert trigger or escalation level. That gives clear context for when the list matters, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_channel or how it pairs with test_channel.

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