list_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the result is scoped to what is visible in the configured backend scope. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or how channels are defined, though the bar is lower given the 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the main action plus scope are stated immediately.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, this description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that 'configured backend scope' is somewhat vague, and there is no explicit statement of the output shape, though 'List' strongly implies a collection result. Overall, an agent can safely invoke this tool without missing critical information.

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 the schema is an empty object, so schema description coverage is 100%. There are no parameters whose semantics need explanation; the baseline of 4 applies because the tool takes no inputs and the description's scope qualifier is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('existing terminal channels') with an explicit scope qualifier ('visible in the configured backend scope'). It clearly conveys a plural listing operation, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling tools get_channel and read_channel, and from the write-oriented write_text and send_control.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_channel and read_channel available, an agent is not told whether list_channels is the right choice for enumeration versus targeted retrieval, nor are any exclusions or conditions provided.

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