channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (participants, unread counts, last activity) and the read-only nature is implied by 'List'. However, it omits details like empty-channel behavior, pagination, or ordering, which a listing tool might exhibit; with no annotations to fall back on, slightly more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose first, then the scope, then the returned fields, ending with a sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place, and there is zero filler.

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 listing tool with a fully documented parameter schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it names what is listed and which fields come back. Without an output schema, it could add exact field names or structure, but the key information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result is present.

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 coverage is 100% — the single api_key parameter is fully described in the input schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already documents them, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('List') with a resource ('your communication channels') and enumerates the scope and returned data: public Court, alliance channel, private channels, participants, unread counts, and last activity. It also names the sibling it is not ('Read one via read_channel'), so an agent can distinguish it from read_channel without opening the schema.

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 clear context for when to call this tool — to get an overview of all channels — and routes to the natural alternative ('Read one via read_channel'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to other siblings like publish_channel, but the listing-vs-reading boundary is clearly drawn.

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