List Chat Channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that channels are 'public' and 'visible to the current user', mentions support for 'filtering and pagination', and describes return content ('channel information including title, description, and member counts'), which is not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key features (return content, filtering, pagination). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering/pagination), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, open-world, idempotent), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It adds useful context like 'public' visibility and return content. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response format (e.g., structure of returned channel objects), though the mention of 'channel information including title, description, and member counts' partially addresses this.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'filter' for name/slug, 'limit' with defaults and max, 'offset' for pagination, 'status' for channel status). The description mentions 'Supports filtering and pagination' but does not add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all public chat channels visible to the current user'), specifying scope ('public', 'visible to current user') and distinguishing from siblings like 'discourse_list_user_chat_channels' which likely shows user-specific channels. It provides specific output details ('channel information including title, description, and member counts').

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 implies usage for retrieving public chat channels with filtering/pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discourse_list_user_chat_channels' or 'discourse_filter_topics'. It provides clear context ('visible to the current user') but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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