list-channel-sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default channel behavior and the quota cost per call, which goes beyond the bare operation. It could mention return format, but for a simple list operation this is reasonable.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a helpful clarification in parentheses. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core purpose and parameter behavior, but without an output schema, it omits return format or pagination details. This is a gap for an AI agent, though the cost and default behavior partially compensate.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter channelId, including its default behavior. The description reiterates this information without adding new semantic detail, so it neither elevates nor diminishes the schema's clarity.

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 the resource 'channel sections', with a parenthetical explanation of what channel sections are and a definition of the default behavior when channelId is omitted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-channel-section or update-channel-section.

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 usage context by explaining that omitting channelId targets the authenticated user's channel and by mentioning the quota cost. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb 'list' and the context of sibling tools make the usage clear.

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