get_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries less burden here. It adds guild scoping, which is consistent with annotations, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or exact metadata fields returned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the core operation immediately and earns high marks for conciseness, even though more behavioral detail could have been added.

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 one-parameter, annotation-rich read-only tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it identifies the resource, scope, and list-like return. However, it leaves return-field specifics and alternative routing to the agent's inference, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. 'For a guild' loosely maps to guild_id, but the meaning is already carried by the parameter name and pattern. No additional format, optionality, or behavior details are provided.

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 action ('List'), a concrete resource ('channel metadata'), and a clear scope ('for a guild'). The plural 'channels' and guild scope distinguish it from siblings like get_channel and get_guild, even without naming them.

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 'for a guild' phrase implies the intended context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_channel for a single channel. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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