List Slack Channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantially more: pagination mechanics, the counterintuitive case where a page returns zero channels but next_cursor is set because the search scan is bounded, and the prerequisite that the RawTree app must be a member of a private channel before posting. Auth constraints (user credential/OAuth required, API keys unsupported, RawTree-enforced authorization) are also disclosed, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Bold section labels (Purpose, Returns, Behavior, Auth, When to use) make it skimmable and front-loaded, and the works-as-documented return shape is stated in one line. It is somewhat long and repeats name-substring matching from the schema, so a small amount of content doesn't earn 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?

With no output schema and four parameters, the description supplies the missing return contract ({ channels, next_cursor } with channel fields and null-cursor termination), the pagination loop the agent must implement, and the auth model. Nothing needed to call it correctly — including how to recover from an empty-but-cursored page — is left to inference.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: cursor must be passed together with the same name used to produce it, and name matching ignores a leading '#', surrounding spaces, and case — normalization rules absent from the schema text. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't discuss what organization/integration_id must be paired with (cross-org behavior).

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?

Opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'List or search the channels of a Slack workspace connected to a RawTree organization.' The scope (workspace of a connected org) and the two modes (list vs. search via name) are explicit, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like list-integrations or get-workflow without opening the schema.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' block names both concrete triggers: finding a channel for a workflow Slack sink, and resolving a partially-described channel to an exact name or ID. It also pre-empts an alternative route by noting that Workflow Slack sinks accept channel_name directly, so the agent knows when this lookup is and isn't required.

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