slack_list_usergroups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower; the description still contributes the required OAuth scope ('usergroups:read') and the behavioral effect of include_users on the payload. It leaves out pagination/result-size behavior, which matters for a list call.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and its scope requirement last. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing workspace semantics rather than being purely efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a two-parameter list tool the description leaves the required workspace parameter and any pagination/limit behavior unaddressed, which an agent needs before a correct call.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains include_users well (adds member IDs) but says nothing about 'workspace' — whether it takes an ID, a name, or a slug — which is the one required parameter.

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 and resource ('List user groups and counts') plus the optional enrichment ('include_users adds member IDs'). No sibling covers usergroups, so differentiation is implicit but unambiguous among the listed tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the object type; the description never says when to reach for this versus e.g. slack_find_user or slack_user_info, nor any preconditions beyond the scope. An agent can infer the intent but gets no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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