list_slack_channels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Visible to the bot' implies authentication-style scoping but doesn't state that the account_id parameter selects which credential is used, whether results are sorted, how pagination works, or what happens with no channels. For a read/list operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency about the filtering behavior (exclude_archived default) would be expected.

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?

A single efficient sentence that captures the core purpose. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key action. It could arguably be slightly more informative, but for a straightforward list tool, this length is appropriate.

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 a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, which lowers the burden on the description. However, there are no annotations to convey read-only safety, and the description doesn't mention pagination expectations or whether archived channels are commonly encountered. For a simple listing tool with good schema coverage and an output schema, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 all 4 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify cursor mechanics, limit bounds, or the relationship between exclude_archived and default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb (List) and resource (Slack channels and conversations), with a scope modifier ('visible to the bot'). It distinguishes adequately from siblings like get_slack_channel_history (which implies message history) and search_slack_messages (message search), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 for browsing available channels, and 'visible to the bot' hints at permission-scoped results. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_calendars, list_accounts, or list_organizations, and no mention of pagination behavior or rate limits for large channel counts.

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