channels_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation and states the output includes channel IDs. However, it doesn't mention pagination, whether channels are only connected ones, or any ordering/filtering 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 description is two sentences long and is front-loaded with the main action and scope. The second sentence conveys important downstream usage without wasting words.

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 simple list tool with one required parameter, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and explains what the output is used for. Since there is no output schema, stating that the return contains channel IDs is valuable, though it could be more explicit about the full response shape.

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 already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the helpful 'get from account_info' hint. The description adds context about why the returned IDs matter but doesn't add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('List all connected social media channels') and the resource ('for an organization'). It also explicitly notes the returned channel IDs are required by post_create and posts_list, giving it a distinct purpose from sibling tools like channel_get.

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 provides clear context by stating that this tool returns channel IDs needed by post_create and posts_list, implying it should be called before those tools. It doesn't explicitly compare against channel_get, but the 'all channels' wording makes the scope clear enough.

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