list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses a genuinely useful access rule — private channels (§88a) appear only if you are a member — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or the fact that results are scoped to the active mesh session (only implied). Decent but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, scope statement front-loaded followed immediately by the visibility exception. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and with zero parameters the schema covers the input side entirely. The only residual gaps are ordering/pagination behavior, which are minor for a small enumerating tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for parameterless tools is 4.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (channels) plus a scoping constraint ('visible to you in the active mesh'), which cleanly separates it from read_channel (single-channel read) and list_channel_members. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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 use case (enumerate the channels you can see) is implied by the verb and scope, and the private-channel visibility rule hints at the filtering model, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as search_chat or read_channel for deeper lookups.

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