Slack List Channels

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and an output schema exists, so the bar is low. The description still adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention pagination behavior, the fact that archived channels and non-public types are excluded by default, or ordering of results.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. Brevity here crosses slightly into under-specification rather than being optimally informative.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a full schema, and an output schema, an agent can call this correctly. Still, defaults like excluding archived channels and the paginated nature of the results are only discoverable by opening the schema, so the description is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, with limit bounds, type values, cursor meaning, and the archived default all documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List channels') scoped to the Slack workspace, so an agent can immediately tell what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as slack_get_channel_info or slack_list_channel_members, which an explicit clause could have done.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. channel info vs. member listing), nor of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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