slack_search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the scope ('across channels the bot can see') but fails to explain authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens if query is null (default), or that the bot must be a member of channels for results. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about behavioral nuances.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action, which is good for conciseness. However, the contradiction between 'required' and the schema's default null introduces confusion, and the structure in a docstring format is acceptable but not exemplary. It earns its place but wastes no words.

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 complexity of the tool (search across multiple channels) and the presence of many sibling search tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain whether the bot needs to be invited to channels, whether it searches public channels only, or how the results are returned (though an output schema exists). The agent is left with too many unanswered questions to use this tool reliably.

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 description adds some meaning to parameters: it explains the 'query' supports operators like from:, in:, after:, before: and that 'count' is max results. However, there is a contradiction: the schema shows query with default null while the description says 'required'. Additionally, schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to fully document both parameters, especially missing details on the null behavior.

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 clearly states 'Search Slack messages across channels the bot can see', specifying the verb (search), resource (Slack messages), and scope (across channels the bot can see). This differentiates from sibling tools like slack_get_channel_history (single channel) and slack_list_channels (list channels). However, the presence of a sibling named 'slack_search' creates potential ambiguity, and the description does not directly distinguish itself from that tool.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that it searches across channels, but does not state when to prefer it over slack_get_channel_history, slack_search, or other search tools. No 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites is given.

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