List channel features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond them: required scope channels:read, the luca:read OAuth scope, redacted data sensitivity, and the semantic meaning of a 'blocked' feature. The line 'Does not require idempotency' sits in mild tension with idempotentHint: true, but it refers to an idempotency key rather than the operation's repeat-safety, so it is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Well front-loaded: the capability-check purpose comes first, then machine-readable metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace override) in short discrete lines. The scopes/sensitivity boilerplate is compact and each line carries distinct information.

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-value documentation is correctly omitted, and annotations carry the safety profile. Scope requirements, endpoint, and override semantics are present; the only real gap is routing guidance against the many channel and provider-capability siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override 'the default workspace configured by environment' adds a small amount of context absent from the schema's 'Optional Luca workspace id override', but it does not clarify precedence when both are supplied.

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 resource ('List what each provider supports') and goes further by enumerating the feature domain (sending media, interactive replies) and the blocking conditions (permission, webhook field, provider approval). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as luca_channels_list, luca_channels_get, luca_channels_catalog, or luca_campaigns_provider_capabilities, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Check this before telling the coach a channel can do something' is a real usage cue — a pre-flight capability check — so guidance is implied and actionable. However, no alternative is named and no exclusion is given, despite a 150+ sibling set containing several channel-related list/get tools the agent must choose between.

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