slack_list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists public channels and supports pagination. However, it does not mention rate limits, required permissions, or whether it returns all public channels or only those the user is a member of. This adds some value but is not fully transparent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is purposeful and there is no extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 pagination, the description covers the core purpose and pagination mechanism. It does not describe the return format or additional behavior, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete. A slight gap is the lack of mention that it lists only public channels.

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 100%, so both 'limit' and 'cursor' are already described in the schema parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'List public channels in the workspace with pagination', specifying the verb 'list', resource 'public channels', scope 'workspace', and mentions pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slack_post_message or slack_get_channel_history.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies a read operation but lacks guidance on context, such as for obtaining a list of channels before posting or searching. Without explicit when/when-not, it is adequate but has gaps.

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