list-channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned fields (snippet, statistics, status) and the quota cost (1 unit per call), which are valuable behavioral details. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'list' strongly implies it, and the quota note is a meaningful addition.

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 sentence that efficiently states the action, scope, return fields, and quota cost. No unnecessary words or repetition, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, clear scope), the description covers everything essential: what it lists, whose channels, what data is returned, and cost. There are no obvious gaps that would hinder correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 the authenticated user's own channel(s) and specifies the returned data types (snippet, statistics, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-playlists or list-videos, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 is for retrieving the authenticated user's own channels. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the scoping to 'own channel(s)' implies when to use it, and sibling tools like list-channel-sections cover different resources, so the usage is clear enough.

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