slack_status

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 diagnostic outputs (connection state, watcher status, queued messages) and the behavioral consequence of the watcher not running ('nothing inbound reaches this session'). It does not mention any read-only guarantee or side effects, but the diagnostic nature is clear from context.

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 front-loaded with the core diagnostic purpose and then lists the specific things checked. It is slightly long but every clause adds distinct information; 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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing what the tool checks and when to call it. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the results.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed and focuses on outputs instead, which is appropriate for a no-arg diagnostic tool.

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 and resource (check the Slack bridge end to end) and enumerates exactly what it returns: connection state, mention watcher status, queued message count, and other connected projects. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_slack_inbox or send_slack_message, which perform different operations.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call it first when Slack seems unresponsive or after starting a session, and explicitly says 'instead of guessing'. This gives the agent a clear decision rule that no sibling tool provides.

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