bridge_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds that it lists active (not all) channels and includes message counts, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe any other behavioral aspects such as performance, pagination, or filtering limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core action and the additional data included, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that there is zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential scope ('active channels' and 'message counts'). It does not mention any potential limitations of 'active', but the output schema likely supports understanding the return. The description is sufficient for a simple enumeration tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no elaboration. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all active channels') with an additional detail ('their message counts'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling operations like bridge_send or bridge_receive, which are clearly not listing operations.

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 choose this tool over siblings such as bridge_status or bridge_ping. The description implies it is for discovering channels, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit support.

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