slack_list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a metadata-only operation, that no content is downloaded, and that the response contains file metadata plus pagination info. It does not mention auth scopes or rate limits, but for a read-only listing tool this is a minor omission rather than a serious gap.

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 compact, well-structured docstring with a front-loaded summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every line adds meaningful information, and no filler or repetition exists.

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 tool with seven optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema-level descriptions, the description covers every parameter and the return shape. The output schema exists and can carry detailed return-value structure, so the description's concise 'File metadata list with pagination info' is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains all seven parameters: channel_id, user_id, types, count, page, ts_from, and ts_to, including valid values and defaults. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List files in the Slack workspace.' It also adds a meaningful scope qualifier, 'metadata only, no content download,' which distinguishes this from content-retrieval or single-file tools like slack_get_file_info.

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 intended use case is clear from 'List files' and the filter arguments, but the description never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings such as slack_get_file_info or slack_search_messages. Usage is implied rather than explicitly directed, so an agent is left to infer when this is the right choice.

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