Listar canais

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are grouped by category and may include channels the caller cannot read, with read_messages returning FORBIDDEN on those. Pagination and result limits are not addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first covers what is returned and how it is organized, the second covers the access caveat. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the grouping, and the annotation covers the read-only profile. The permission caveat is a valuable addition. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination/volume guidance for large guilds).

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so query, types, format, and guildId are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum for types and the text/json format switch. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource (lists a server's channels) plus scope details (grouped by category) and the fields returned (id, type, topic, last message). It distinguishes behaviorally from read_messages but never names the natural alternatives for a single channel (get_channel) or threads (list_threads), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it to enumerate a guild's channels, and the note that channels without access may be included steers expectations. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_channel, list_threads, or search_messages, and no stated prerequisites.

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