list_channels

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: only that the operation is a listing. It does not say whether the result is paginated, sorted, permission-filtered, or whether categories and channels come back interleaved or nested. An output schema exists, which relieves it of describing return values, but scope and access behavior remain unstated.

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 compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the enum legend secondary; nothing is padded. The only structural flaw is that the second sentence is presented as an input argument when it is not in the schema.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but for a guild-scoped listing tool the definition still leaves required context out: the required guild_id is undocumented and the 'type' legend points at a nonexistent parameter. An agent cannot determine from this text how to call the tool correctly beyond supplying guild_id by guesswork.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does not: guild_id, the sole required argument, is never mentioned or explained. Worse, the description documents a 'type' argument with value mappings (0=texto, 2=voz, 4=categoria, 5=anúncios, 15=fórum) that does not exist in the input schema, which will mislead an agent into passing a rejected parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resources: 'Lista canais e categorias' (lists channels and categories). That is clear enough to distinguish this from the mutating siblings such as create_channel, edit_channel, and delete_channel, although it never names an alternative tool or explains the channel-vs-category grouping it returns. Minor encoding damage ('anúncios') slightly hurts readability but not meaning.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is guild-scoped, whether it requires permissions, or when an agent should prefer it over get_guild or the channel-addressed read tools in the sibling list. The only usage-adjacent content is the type legend, which is not framed as a selection criterion.

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