bus_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that it reads. It does not say whether results are ordered, paginated, filtered by membership, or whether auth/registration is required — notable given bus_register and bus_rotate_token exist as siblings.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a trivial no-arg listing tool. It is arguably too terse, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema, the core need is knowing what comes back and in what shape. The description explains the output conceptually (channels + counts) but omits ordering, scope, and whether this requires prior bus registration.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does at least identify the returned fields (channel names with message counts).

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?

States a concrete verb ('List') and resource ('message channels') plus the payload ('message counts'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like bus_agents, bus_status, or bus_search, which could plausibly also enumerate bus entities.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling alternative. The agent must infer that this is a discovery call to enumerate channels before send/inbox/thread operations.

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