slack_list_stars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the read-only nature via 'List', the user scoping, and pagination behavior through the parameter explanations and the return statement. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or how pagination modes interact, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds information, with no tautology or redundant filler.

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?

The description covers the main action, parameters, and return concept, and an output schema exists for detailed return fields. However, it does not clarify whether cursor and page/count are mutually exclusive, how they interact, or what happens if both are provided. This ambiguity could lead an agent to pass conflicting pagination arguments.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter meaningfully: count's range and default, page's purpose, and cursor's role as a continuation token. This goes well beyond the bare type/default information in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List starred items for the authenticated user.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like slack_list_reactions, slack_list_files, or slack_list_channels by identifying the unique 'stars' resource and user scoping.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slack_search_messages, slack_list_reactions, or slack_list_files. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the core listing action.

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