zerodb_slack_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavier burden. It does add behavioral context by explaining the authentication mechanism: 'uses the token from your connected Slack account in ZeroDB.' However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., no Slack connection), rate limits, or confirm side effects beyond the obvious message send. This partial transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Send a Slack message'). Every word adds value: it specifies the method (stored OAuth connection), clarifies the authentication advantage (no API key), and ties it to the ZeroDB context. Zero waste.

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 tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: auth method, token source, and required connection. It doesn't explain return values or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's high coverage, it is largely complete. A minor gap is not mentioning what happens if no Slack connection exists.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Slack message' generically, but each parameter (channel, message, thread_ts) is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra value here.

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 tool's function: 'Send a Slack message' using a stored OAuth connection. The verb 'send' plus the explicit resource 'Slack message' is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming Slack, which is not covered by any other sibling.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: whenever you need to send a Slack message. It also explains that no API key is required, implying the prerequisite of a connected Slack account. While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, the context is sufficient for this simple send operation.

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