list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the returned data structure (Count, Channels with fields), default and maximum limits, and that search is a RegExp pattern. It does not cover side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read operation the described behavior is sufficient.

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?

Description is concise (3 lines plus return structure) and well-structured with bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Description fully covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with constraints, and return format. Output schema exists but description still adds readability. Sibling tool is not related, so no cross-referencing needed. Complete for a list operation.

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%, so description adds crucial meaning: 'account' is account name with default, 'search' is optional RegExp pattern with max 200 chars, 'limit' is max channels with defaults and max 500. This goes well beyond the bare 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?

Description clearly states 'List Telegram channels the account is subscribed to' which uses a specific verb and resource. It easily distinguishes from sibling tool 'read_messages' which deals with messages, not channels.

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?

Description implies usage context (listing subscribed channels) but does not explicitly provide when to use vs. alternatives, nor does it mention conditions to avoid using this tool. No exclusions or guidance on when not to use.

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