slack_get_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the cursor parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what '기본 프로필 정보' (basic profile information) specifically includes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a user-fetching tool with pagination (2 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination mechanics beyond the cursor parameter, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in a Slack workspace context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (cursor for pagination, limit with default and max). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('가져오기' - get/fetch) and resource ('워크스페이스의 모든 사용자와 기본 프로필 정보' - all users and basic profile information in the workspace), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'slack_get_user_profile' which might fetch a single user's profile, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this bulk user-fetching tool instead of 'slack_get_user_profile' for individual profiles, or any prerequisites like authentication requirements, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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