slack_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the single-message rewrite model, the ts handoff between calls, and the meaning of every status. It omits permissions/auth needs, rate limits, and failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core concept before the mechanics and the status vocabulary. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the trailing status enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema enums.

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 an 8-parameter stateful tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the lifecycle and statuses adequately, and the remaining parameters (title, footer, advance, thread_ts) are well documented in the schema. Minor gaps remain around permissions and error cases.

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 schema already documents ts, steps, update, advance, title, footer, thread_ts and channel. The description reinforces the ts/steps/update relationship but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, 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 gives a concrete, vivid verb+resource: a live Slack checklist kept to one self-rewriting message, plus the create/update lifecycle. It is clearly not a generic message tool, though it never names a sibling (e.g. update_slack_message) to sharpen the distinction.

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 states the calling pattern explicitly ('call once with steps... call again with that ts and update') and the intended context ('any job with several stages', replacing a run of 'doing X now' messages). No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops 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.