slack_list_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('페이지네이션과 함께' - with pagination), which is valuable context not in the schema. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, whether this is a read-only operation, or what the return format looks like. For a listing tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource scope (public/pre-defined channels) and key behavior (listing with pagination). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (listing with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details about authentication, rate limits, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more context would be helpful.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters (limit and cursor). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions pagination generally but doesn't explain how the cursor parameter works or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('목록으로 표시' - list/display) and resource ('workspace의 public 또는 pre-defined된 채널' - public or pre-defined channels in workspace). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing channels rather than posting messages, getting history, or managing users. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar listing tools that might exist.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'public 또는 pre-defined된 채널' (public or pre-defined channels), suggesting this is for viewing available channels rather than private ones. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like slack_get_users or slack_get_channel_history, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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