coding_watch_slack

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

No annotation contradiction exists: the description does not claim read-only behavior while destructiveHint=true. It does add some context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what the watch_slack action actually changes or produces, leaving the main behavioral substance undocumented.

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 compact and front-loads the key fact: it runs the coding domain agent action watch_slack. The routing sentence and the two-line args list are relevant and contain little fluff.

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?

Given the destructiveHint annotation and the ambiguity of 'watch_slack', the description should explain what the action does, what side effects may occur, and when to prefer it over direct Slack tools. The relay/dispatcher implementation detail is useful but does not make the tool safe or easy to select 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string. This is more than the bare schema provides, though it does not enumerate valid structured input keys or formats.

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 names a specific resource ('coding domain agent action watch_slack') and a verb ('Run'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never says what 'watch_slack' actually does — it only says it routes through a dispatcher. The underlying behavior is left to inference from the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative such as the many slack_* tools or other coding_* actions. The JWT/tenant/company scoping is invocation context, not usage guidance. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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