Slack bot status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the tool surfaces scopes and specifically which tools are missing scopes, making it a diagnostic rather than an identity call. It does not describe output format or failure modes, but with annotations carrying the safety signal this is solid.

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?

A single dense sentence listing the returned fields, followed by one actionable routing sentence. Every clause earns its place; the field list is long but each item is a distinct diagnostic output. Front-loading the verb 'Show' keeps it readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so explicitly by enumerating the six categories of information returned. Combined with the troubleshooting trigger, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it is workspace/bot-scoped rather than user-scoped.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and focuses on what the call reveals.

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 gives a concrete verb ("Show") and enumerates the exact resources returned: server version, connected bot, workspace, connection mode, granted scopes, and missing-scope tools. This clearly reframes the ambiguous name 'whoami' into a Slack diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling user_info, which sounds superficially similar, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

It gives a crisp trigger condition: "Call this first when a Slack action fails with a permission error." That is a genuine when-to-use rule tied to the sibling family of Slack actions. It stops short of naming a true alternative or stating when not to call it, so it is strong but not complete.

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