slack_users_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds nothing behavioral on top of them. It says nothing about pagination behavior, the teamId requirement for org-wide tokens, or rate limits, so the structured fields carry the whole load.

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 first and the resolution use case second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns only implicitly ('user ID'). It omits pagination guidance and the org-wide token/teamId caveat, leaving the agent to discover those from the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, teamId and includeLocale are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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 members of the workspace') and adds the resolution intent, so an agent can distinguish it from slack_chat_post_message. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use case: resolving a person's name to the user ID that mentions and filters expect. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the triggering context is clear.

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