List available channels

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real value on top: required scopes (channels:read, luca:read), data sensitivity 'redacted', the underlying GET endpoint, and the non-obvious semantics that availability is per channel rather than per coach.

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?

Front-loads the human-readable purpose, then a compact metadata block (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override). Every line is short and earns its place; the metadata lines are terse rather than padded.

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 the description supplies the operation, scopes, sensitivity, and workspace-override mechanics an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the sibling differentiation is missing.

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%, so both optional parameters are already documented. The description restates the override purpose ('override the default workspace configured by environment'), which clarifies precedence relative to the environment default but adds little beyond the schema's 'Optional Luca workspace id override'.

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 every channel Luca supports') and adds the meaningful qualifier that it reports connect-ability. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-name siblings luca_channels_list, luca_channels_get, or luca_channels_features, so an agent must infer the catalog-vs-list distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the per-channel availability note and the workspace-override sentence suggest a discovery call scoped to a workspace. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative among the four channel siblings.

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