Slack MCP Server

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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'count' and 'page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent 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 list operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), output format, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains inadequate for effective agent use.

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, providing clear details for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'channel' filters by channel ID, 'types' with comma-separated values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting but doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 ('files shared in the workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'slack_get_file_info' (which retrieves details about a specific file) or 'slack_upload_file' (which uploads files), missing an opportunity for clearer sibling distinction.

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 sibling tools like 'slack_search_messages' (which might find files in message content) or 'slack_get_file_info' (for specific file details), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or workspace context.

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