slack_list_channels

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool as read-only and lists return fields, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior, rate limits, scope requirements, or what happens with empty results. The schema describes the pagination cursor but the description does not mention it.

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, each adding distinct value. Front-loaded with the main action and return type, followed by critical usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple listing tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. Could mention pagination or default channel types more explicitly, but overall adequate.

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?

All three parameters (types, limit, cursor) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds only minimal value beyond the schema by listing return fields but does not enrich parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'Slack channels', specifies it is read-only, and mentions the returned fields (id, name, topic, member count). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that the returned id is used with slack_channel_history and that other tools require id, not name.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: to get channel ids for use with other tools like slack_channel_history. It provides a critical usage hint that most other tools take an id (C0123ABCD), not a name, which helps the agent select the correct tool and invoke it properly.

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