tgtrack_list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool lists entities but does not disclose read-only nature, whether it returns full details or summaries, or any pagination/performance characteristics. For a read tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly improved with a more active verb structure.

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?

Given no parameters and a straightforward action, the description covers the basics. However, with no output schema, it should at least hint at what fields or format the list returns (e.g., IDs, names). The lack of such detail leaves some gaps for an agent expecting to parse the result.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying what is listed (channels, groups, bots). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets it by providing context beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly indicates it lists all channels/groups/bots of the user in tgtrack. It specifies the resource type and scope (user's own entities), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tgtrack_get_channel which targets a single item. However, using a noun ('List') instead of an active verb slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs get_channel). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about its role among siblings.

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