agent_list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the encryption model (relay-held key, relay can read posts) and flags returned content as untrusted third-party data with a prompt-injection warning. This is meaningful context beyond any structured field, though it omits pagination and permission behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly packed security warnings. No wasted sentences, though the security block is somewhat verbose relative to the core operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, the key parameter behavior, and critical security caveats. It is close to complete for a read-only listing tool, missing only minor operational details like pagination.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including mine, limit, query, and topic. The description reinforces the mine=true semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Discover public channels / list your own') and distinguishes the mine=true variant from the default behavior. An agent can tell this lists channels rather than creating, joining, posting, or reading one, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It gives implicit usage context by explaining that mine=true scopes to your own channels, which helps parameter selection. However, it never states when to use this tool versus agent_discover or agent_read_channel, and offers no when-not guidance.

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