slack_list_channels

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

In absence of annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope requirement but lacks details on rate limits, which channels are returned (membership-based), and response structure. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two focused sentences: first states the core action, second adds prerequisite. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key 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?

For a list operation with no output schema, the description lacks details about what is returned per channel (e.g., id, name, topic), whether archived channels are included, and pagination specifics beyond cursors. Adequate for simple use but could improve.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which already describes limit and cursor with defaults.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists public and private channels with pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'channels' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools which perform different actions like adding reactions or getting messages.

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?

Specifies the required 'groups:read' scope for private channels, providing necessary context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though siblings are sufficiently different that no exclusion is critical.

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