users_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the 'detailed' flag, omitting pagination behavior, team_id requirement for org-wide apps, or side effects. The return type is not described despite an output schema existing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, no filler. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key option.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no required params, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination (cursor, limit), the team_id parameter for org-wide apps, or the include_locale flag. An agent lacks context to use it correctly.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the detailed parameter. No parameter format, defaults, or constraints explained beyond schema.

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 'List all users in a Slack team', specifying the action and resource. The sibling tools include users_info and users_lookup_by_email, so the purpose is distinct, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like users_info for single users or users_conversations for user memberships. No mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or optimal usage scenarios.

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