login_slack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that OAuth is used and that a browser opens for authorization, which is valuable. However, it does not explain side effects such as persisting session tokens, how success/failure is signaled, or whether the tool is idempotent. The mention of env vars is a prerequisite, not a behavioral trait. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the main action 'Login to Slack via OAuth.' It consists of three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the purpose, the mechanism, and the requirements. No unnecessary information is present.

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 simple zero-parameter login tool, the description covers the essential points: what it does, how it does it, and what is required. It could be improved by mentioning the outcome after login (e.g., that Slack API tools will become usable) or how to handle the browser interaction, but these are inferable from the login context. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about required environment variables (SLACK_CLIENT_ID, SLACK_CLIENT_SECRET), which are external prerequisites for invocation. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the setup needed, though it does not directly explain parameters since there are none.

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 the tool's function: 'Login to Slack via OAuth.' It also specifies the mechanism ('Opens browser for authorization') and resource (Slack), distinguishing it from siblings like login_jenkins. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies when to use the tool (for Slack OAuth login) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It mentions required environment variables, which is a prerequisite, but no guidance on when to choose this over other login tools or when not to use it. The usage context is clear from the name and description, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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