search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It includes a detailed 'Behavioral Transparency' section claiming read-only, stateless, and idempotent behavior, but this appears copy-pasted from a generic analysis tool and contradicts the Slack search context (e.g., 'No authentication required' is likely false for Slack). The inconsistency reduces trust.

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 excessively long and repetitive, with a main description, a 'When to use' section, an 'Args' list, and a redundant 'Behavioral Transparency' block. The structure is disjointed, and the inclusion of unrelated generic content wastes tokens.

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?

The description lacks an explanation of return values or output format, and the generic analysis content dilutes the Slack messaging context. It does not clarify when to use this tool over siblings like get_thread or list_channels, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description's 'Args' section merely repeats parameter names with generic phrases like 'The query to analyze or process.' It fails to explain how to use Slack-specific modifiers or what valid values are for 'sort' and 'count', leaving agents without meaningful guidance.

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 opens with a clear purpose: 'Search messages across the entire Slack workspace.' However, later sections (e.g., 'When to use') describe a generic analysis or classification tool, creating confusion and undermining the initial clarity.

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 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections are overly generic and do not help differentiate from sibling tools like list_channels or get_thread. They reference 'structured analysis' rather than message searching, providing poor guidance for tool selection.

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