list-team-channels

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

The annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or what fields are returned, which are only available in the parameter schema. It simply restates the operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and object. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than helpful conciseness, so 4.

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 listing tool with thorough parameter descriptions and safety annotations, the one-line description is acceptable but not complete. It does not explain the return value (no output schema) or offer any comparison with the many sibling list tools, leaving an agent to infer behavior from the schema and tool name. A bit more context would improve selection accuracy.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including detailed explanations for cursor, filter, select, teamId, and maxItems. The description itself says nothing about parameters, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('channels of a team'), so an agent can tell it is a listing operation on team channels. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as 'get-team-channel' (single channel) or 'list-channel-messages' (messages within a channel), relying on the resource name alone.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when to prefer 'get-team-channel' or 'list-channel-messages'. An agent must infer the intended use from the tool name and parameter schema.

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