list_channels

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or the default exclusion of archived channels (though that is inferable from the schema).

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a focused parameter hint. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could clarify why both hub_profile_id and workspace_id are required and the exact scope (e.g., channels within a workspace for a specific hub profile), but it is adequate for basic use.

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 description adds semantic value for workspace_id by explaining it is the target workspace and how to get valid IDs. However, it does not explain hub_profile_id or include_archived, leaving most parameter meaning to the 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 states the action ('List all channels') and the resource scope ('for a hub profile'). It is distinguished from channel-specific tools like get_channel_by_name by using 'list all', but does not explicitly differentiate from other list-like channel tools or mention the workspace context.

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 other channel-related tools. It only includes a parameter sourcing tip (use list_workspaces() for workspace_id), which helps with parameter values but not with tool selection.

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