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 clear. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or error conditions. It is consistent with annotations, but not information-rich beyond them.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 list operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not state the shape of the response (e.g., array of channel configurations) and does not explicitly note that it only returns configurations for the specified agent beyond the parameter description. This modest gap prevents a perfect score.

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% with agent_id already described as 'Agent id whose channels to list'. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List channel configurations for a given agent' clearly states the verb (list), resource (channel configurations), and scope (for a given agent). It distinguishes from the sibling tool lyzr_list_all_channels by indicating this is agent-scoped, making it specific and non-tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_list_all_channels or lyzr_create_channel. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for tool selection.

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