slack_list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the access scope (channels the bot can see) and the shape of the result, but says nothing about pagination, result limits for large workspaces, or rate limiting. Read-only behavior is only implied by the verb "List".

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence describing the return format is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little and does not dilute the definition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a declared output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it. The one meaningful gap is the absence of any note about pagination or completeness of results in large workspaces.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the schema does not support.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List all Slack channels") plus a scope qualifier ("accessible by the bot"), so the agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings slack_read_channel or slack_post_message, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

There is no explicit "use this when..." or exclusion guidance. Usage is only implied: the mention of channel names and IDs signals this is a discovery tool for resolving channel identifiers before reading or posting. An agent can infer this, but the description never states it.

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