Slack List Channel Members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing further: no note on visibility restrictions (private vs public channels), pagination behavior, or permission requirements. With annotations carrying the safety bar, the description still leaves behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it verges on under-specified rather than lean.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the schema, so the essentials are covered. However, for a tool whose results depend on channel type (C/D/G IDs imply channels, DMs, private groups), the description omits any behavioral context the agent would need to interpret results 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 100%, so channel_id, limit, and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List members of a Slack channel'), which distinguishes it from siblings like slack_list_users and slack_list_channels. Clear, though it does nothing beyond naming the operation.

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 on when to use this versus slack_list_users or slack_get_channel_info, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing to be a channel member or having the right scopes. The agent must infer everything.

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