slack_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral cue about pagination via response_metadata.next_cursor, but says nothing about Slack rate limits (users.list is heavily throttled), what user types/statuses are returned, or result size.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by the pagination instruction. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 simple read-only listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and paging but leaves the limit parameter and the composition of the returned user list (bots, deactivated accounts) unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: cursor is documented in the schema, but limit (default 15, max 100) is undocumented everywhere. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, not even hinting at page size behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List workspace users") and adds the reason ("to resolve user IDs"), which makes it clearly distinct from siblings like slack_list_conversations or slack_search_messages. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls just short of 5.

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 phrase "to resolve user IDs" implies the use case, so an agent can infer when this beats slack_search_messages. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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