list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (fileKey/fileName, connection time) which is genuinely useful, but 'lists' only implies read-only; it never states that the call is non-mutating, whether a channel must be joined first, or whether results paginate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the 'Channel dashboard' purpose and then the return payload. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs for this simple list tool. It remains a little thin on preconditions (must a channel be joined?) but is otherwise adequate.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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?

Specific verb (lists) plus a precisely scoped resource (every connected Figma plugin channel) and the fields returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from channel-related siblings like join_channel, subscribe_events, or figma_bridge_status, so the agent gets no routing signal from the description 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 'Channel dashboard' framing implies a monitoring/inspection use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many channel and bridge siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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