check_slack_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful return-shape context (each message includes its channel id) plus the reply workflow. However, it never states that reading consumes/marks messages as read, nor any permission or rate-limit behavior — the read-state side effect is only inferable from the schema's peek parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then when to use, then what comes back and how to act on it. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the key returned field (channel id). Only the read-state side effect of the call is left to the schema, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter (peek) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Read) and resource (Slack messages that @mentioned the bot) with an explicit filter (not yet read). This cleanly distinguishes it from every sibling, which are all send/update/status write tools.

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 two concrete triggers: sessions started without --channels that cannot receive notifications, and catching up on missed messages. It also routes the follow-up action to send_slack_message. No explicit 'do not use when' exclusion is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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