list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: results are ordered by category, active threads are included, and forum channels are empty of messages. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether archived/hidden channels are excluded, which leaves real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the parameter note and the one edge case that matters. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and this low-complexity single-parameter read tool is otherwise well covered by the prerequisite and forum caveat. Only pagination/no-archive behavior is left unspecified.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by telling the agent where server_id comes from (list_servers). It doesn't describe the ID's format, but the key semantic — provenance — is covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list a server's channels and active threads) plus a scope detail (category order), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with read_messages or read_server_recent, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite chain ('server_id: a server ID from list_servers') and a concrete routing rule for forum channels ('read their threads instead'), which points the agent elsewhere for that case. It stops short of stating the general boundary versus read_messages for non-forum channels.

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