List AxonHub 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. It adds one useful behavior: 'Credentials are never returned,' which is a meaningful security guarantee. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or filtering limits, which are relevant for a list operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and returned attributes are front-loaded, and the security note is concise and valuable.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It provides the basic return fields and a security guarantee, but lacks guidance on pagination, filter semantics, and when to use this tool relative to its siblings. An agent would need additional inference to use the filtering and pagination parameters correctly.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters like first, model, and hasTag are left undocumented in both the schema and description, and the 'where' filter is only vaguely described. The tool description names output attributes but does not clarify how to use the input parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('channels'), and lists the exact attributes returned (health, quota, model, limiter status). This makes the tool's purpose clear and helps distinguish it from sibling listing tools like axonhub_list_projects and axonhub_list_models.

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 use case is implied: list channels to inspect their health, quota, model, and limiter status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as axonhub_status or axonhub_list_requests, nor any stated exclusions or alternatives.

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