albyhub_list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions 'Hits GET /api/channels', indicating a read-only operation, and describes typical response fields. However, it omits details like pagination, error behavior, or authentication requirements, which would have made it more transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and field list. However, it includes a tangential comparison to nwc-mcp and an implementation detail ('Hits GET /api/channels') that, while informative, add minor clutter and could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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 parameterless list tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its diagnostic use cases. It lacks explicit mention of limits, sorting, or response structure, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool, so it is sufficiently complete.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned data contains, which is the only relevant semantic here since there are no parameters to document.

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 Lightning channels and enumerates typical fields (peer pubkey, capacity, local/remote balance, public/private flag, online status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balances or get_node_info by focusing on channel-level data.

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 context for when to use the tool, such as spotting offline channels or low inbound liquidity. It also contrasts with nwc-mcp, but does not explicitly list sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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