client_getChannels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It simply restates the tool's action without disclosing read-only status, potential side effects, or return value details. This is a minimal 'get' operation, but the description adds nothing beyond the name.

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 redundant, saying essentially the same thing twice: 'Get channels from the client' and 'Retrieve a list of channels from the client'. This wastes words and fails to be concise.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain what qualifies as a channel, whether it returns subscribed channels, or how it differs from client_searchChannels. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and scope.

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 schema description covers the sessionId parameter 100%, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies — the schema already handles the parameter documentation.

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 the action (get/retrieve) and resource (channels), but it repeats itself and does not differentiate from siblings like client_searchChannels or client_getChats. It is clear enough as a list operation, but lacks specificity about what 'channels from the client' means.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of other tools, conditions, or exclusions, despite a large sibling list including client_searchChannels and client_getChats.

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