fl_list_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the scope ('globally addressed') and the content of results (mix state, routing, generator identity), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key outputs. Every word contributes value, with no fluff 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, read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is listed and what aspects are covered. An output schema exists, so the return format is handled elsewhere. No critical missing information for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The schema is empty and fully covered. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description provides no misleading info.

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 tool's action (list) and the resource (globally addressed channels), and specifies what information is returned (mix state, routing, generator identity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fl_list_mixer_tracks or fl_list_patterns, which target different resources. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when channel information is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling list tools, an agent might need more guidance on selecting this over others. However, the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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