slack_list_channels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals no information about pagination behavior, return format, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether it only lists public channels by default. The presence of 'limit' and 'cursor' parameters is not reflected in the description, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it could benefit from a brief note on the type parameter or default behavior without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context on return structure and behavior. It does none of this. The three parameters are documented in the schema, but the description adds no context about what channels appear, how pagination works, or any default limits, making it incomplete for an agent interacting with an unfamiliar API.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for type, limit, and cursor, so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate, leading to the baseline score of 3.

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 ('List') and the resource ('Slack channels') with a scope ('workspace'). It is distinct from sibling tools like slack_get_channel and slack_create_channel, though it does not explicitly mention the filtering options (type, pagination) that would fully define its scope.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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