List User's Chat Channels

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope (user's channels, including public and direct messages) and mentions unread tracking information, which are behavioral details not covered by 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and key feature (unread tracking). Every word adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and behavioral context well, but could slightly improve by clarifying the output format or any limitations, though annotations help mitigate this gap.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for having no parameters to document, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.

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 chat channels for the currently authenticated user', specifying both public membership channels and direct message channels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discourse_list_chat_channels' by focusing on the user's specific channels rather than all channels.

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 provides clear context: it lists channels for the 'currently authenticated user' and includes unread tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discourse_list_chat_channels' or 'discourse_get_chat_messages', though the user-specific focus is implied.

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