list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that limit is applied client-side and causes channels beyond the limit to be dropped, and that include_raw embeds the raw Graph payload under 'raw' on each item. It also outlines the return shape. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 with an Args and a Returns section. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then each parameter earns its place with essential details. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of schema 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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately documents the return format with items and next_page_token. It covers all four parameters and important behavior such as client-side limits. The only minor gap is that 'trimmed_channel' is not expanded, so an agent may not know exactly which fields are present without further inference.

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% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains team_id as a Graph team id from list_joined_teams, specifies the limit range and default, clarifies that page_token is a continuation token, and defines include_raw behavior. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 channels in a team.' It is clear that this tool retrieves channels for a given team and even identifies the team_id source. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_channel_messages or list_joined_teams, so it stops short of full sibling-level distinction.

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 its usage by explaining that team_id comes from list_joined_teams and describes the parameters. It also indicates that limit is applied client-side and channels beyond it are dropped. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving usage context mostly implied rather than explicit.

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