mattermost_list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about auth requirements (the presence of mattermost_login/mattermost_auth_status suggests sessions matter), whether private/archived channels are included, or whether results are paginated or filtered. Only the read-only nature is implied by the verb.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope stated up front and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that nothing beyond the minimum is conveyed.

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 listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no pagination or auth disclosure, the definition leaves out nearly everything an agent needs beyond the call signature. It does not describe what a returned channel contains or how large the result set may be.

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%, so teamId is already fully documented as 'Mattermost team ID'. The phrase '指定 team' merely restates that the parameter exists and adds no format, source, or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('列出 … channels') scoped to a single team, which an agent can distinguish from mattermost_get_channel (single channel) and mattermost_list_teams (teams). It stops short of naming any sibling, so differentiation is only inferable from the singular/plural 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of a prerequisite team ID obtained from mattermost_list_teams, and no pointer to mattermost_get_channel for single-channel lookup. The agent must infer route selection entirely from the tool name.

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