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 minor context by saying the tool returns channel definitions, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as filtering semantics, output format details, or any side effects. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter explanations are front-loaded and easy to scan. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed, names both parameters, and is supported by rich annotations and an output schema. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance about when to use list_channels versus get_channel or list_queues, which would make the contextual handoff more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does. It explains qmgr as the queue manager name with a concrete example ('QM1') and defines name as a channel-name filter supporting wildcards with examples ('DEV.*' or '*'). This adds meaningful semantic information that the schema lacks and fully clarifies both parameters.

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's action and resource: '列出通道及其定义' (list channels and their definitions). It is specific enough to distinguish from list_queue_managers and list_queues by name, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_channel. Thus it meets the threshold for 'clear but no sibling differentiation'.

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 parameter-level usage details but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_channel or list_queues. It does not state any exclusions or preferred use cases, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate. This is effectively no usage guidance beyond the basic 'list channels' operation.

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