list_channels

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

The description goes beyond the basic function by disclosing potential 403 errors under certain token permissions, and explains that platforms_failed indicates partial failures, warning against interpreting empty results as 'no channels'. This is valuable behavioral context, especially with no annotations provided.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, API endpoint, and return structure. Each section provides essential information without unnecessary fluff, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return structure, fields, failure modes, and caveats, giving the agent all necessary context to use the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 only parameter `platform` is fully documented in the schema with examples and default behavior (auto-query common platforms and merge results). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond repeating the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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 it retrieves the list of all sales channels (取得商店所有銷售渠道清單) with examples like online store, POS, Facebook, Instagram. It is clear about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_detail, though the 'list' vs 'detail' distinction is implied.

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 use cases: '適合了解多渠道銷售佈局，或做渠道業績分析前的渠道資料確認' (suitable for understanding multi-channel layout or confirming channel data before performance analysis). It does not mention alternative tools to use instead, but gives clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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