list_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation and clarifies the required scope. It does not address pagination, permissions, or error behavior, but for a straightforward list tool these omissions are moderate.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

This is a simple list tool with one required parameter fully documented. The description explains what it returns (all channels) and the required scope. It does not detail channel types or return object shape, but with no output schema and low complexity, the definition is largely complete.

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% — the only parameter guild_id is already described. The description reinforces that the guild is a Discord server but adds no additional format or semantics beyond 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('channels'), and scope ('in a specific Discord guild/server'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_guilds and get_channel, which operate on different resources or granularity.

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 clearly implies the appropriate use case: when you need all channels for a given guild. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_channel for a single channel, so no exclusions are stated.

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