list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe to call repeatedly. No side effects or authorization needs are mentioned.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and directly conveys the essential functionality.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers only the basic list and filter functionality, but omits details on pagination (skip/limit), return format, or potential edge cases. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for 'status' and 'name' (filtering), but does not explain 'skip', 'limit', or 'appUuid'. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list', the resource 'live transcoding channels', and the scope 'for an app UUID', with additional filtering support. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_channel_detail and list_error_channels.

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 implies usage by describing what it does, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_apps or list_error_channels. No when-not-to-use or contextual exclusions are given.

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