check_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that scope data comes from Slack's x-oauth-scopes header and that nothing is sent to the workspace, making clear this is a safe read-style check; it does not cover error behavior or rate limits.

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-loaded: purpose first, then usage example, then behavioral note, then parameter clarification. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, data source, non-mutation, and the workspace parameter, but leaves minor gaps around how to obtain a valid workspace name and what happens if scopes are missing.

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?

There is one required workspace parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies it as a 'configured workspace name,' which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema field, but it does not explain the expected format or point to list_workspaces for discovery.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: report the OAuth scopes a workspace token has and which tools it can use. This is a distinct diagnostic purpose, clearly separable from sibling tools like send_message, read_channel, and list_workspaces.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: to confirm the Slack app was installed with scopes a feature needs, with a concrete example of checking files:write and im:write before using send_message with a file_path. It does not state when-not to use it or name alternative diagnostic tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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