list-channels-connection

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which inform about safety and dynamic results. The description reinforces it as a listing operation but adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., side effects, rate limits). No contradictions 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. No unnecessary words, and it conveys the core functionality efficiently.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explicit parameter explanation and usage context. The annotations provide safety assurance, but without output format or sibling differentiation, completeness is moderate.

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 schema has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description hints that the parameter is the connection identifier ('for a given connection'), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the format or confirm it is the connection name, which would be more helpful.

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 tool lists channels filtered by a connection. It uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'channels' with scope 'for a given connection'. While it distinguishes from list-channels (which lists all channels), it does not explicitly differentiate from get-connection-channels, but the action is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-channels or get-connection-channels. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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