channel_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'List of all channels with basic info.' It does not clarify side-effect-free behavior, return shape, ordering, or whether the list includes hidden/inactive channels, which are meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word 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?

For a zero-argument tool this is minimally viable, but the absence of an output schema makes 'basic info' ambiguous. An agent may not know what fields to expect, whether the result is sorted, or if there are any exclusions. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 trivially complete, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is adequate; there is no misleading parameter information.

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 clear verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all channels'), distinguishing it from sibling channel tools like channel_count or channel_info that target a count or a single channel. It stops short of a 5 because 'basic info' is vague and does not say exactly what fields are included.

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 guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as channel_count, channel_info, or mixer_all_tracks. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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