users_list

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by cursor/limit params) or rate limits. The term 'list all' is misleading without acknowledging that results may be limited by pagination or team scope.

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 extremely concise (6 words) but sacrifices essential details. While front-loading the purpose is good, the brevity leaves out necessary behavioral and parameter information, making it under-specified.

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 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention pagination, team filtering, locale inclusion, or how the output differs from other user queries. It meets only the minimal requirement of stating the resource.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to parameters like cursor, include_locale, limit, or team_id. Agents receive no guidance on how to use these optional fields, which is critical for paginated or filtered queries.

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 states the tool lists all users in a Slack team, clearly identifying the verb (list) and resource (users). It distinguishes from sibling tools like users_info or users_lookup_by_email, but could be more specific by noting it returns a list with pagination or sorting.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as users_info for individual users or users_lookup_by_email. The description lacks context on prerequisites or filtering, leaving the agent without decision support.

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