channels_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only transport trivia (POST path, gRPC method, socket name) that does not help the agent understand behavior such as paging defaults, ordering, or what a page contains. It contributes almost nothing beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short and does not waste words on marketing filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The parenthetical endpoint metadata is arguably the bulk of the text and is not the most useful content for an agent.

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, two undocumented parameters, and only a vague "page of channels" return statement, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this correctly with meaningful paging. A list tool with pagination should at minimum describe page/limit semantics and the shape of the returned page.

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% and the two parameters (page, limit) carry only example values. The phrase "a page of channels" hints at pagination but supplies no defaults, no maximum limit, no ordering, and no meaning for what page numbering starts at, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

"A page of channels" essentially restates the tool name channels_list, adding only the notion of paging. It gives no verb of intent (list vs. search vs. enumerate) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like channels_get, channels_aliases, or channels_list's own filtering behavior.

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 use this versus channels_get (single channel), channels_aliases, or any other channel tool, and no prerequisites or constraints are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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