read_channel

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It usefully states newest-first ordering, the 1-200 limit range, and that oldest is inclusive — real behavioral data — but says nothing about pagination/cursors, required permissions, or whether the bot must be a channel member, which are critical for a channel-reading tool.

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?

One-line purpose statement followed by a compact Args list — front-loaded and free of filler. The structure costs little and every line carries parameter information.

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?

Return values needn't be explained since an output schema exists, and all params are covered. Missing pieces are routing guidance against the three related sibling tools and any note on pagination, which matter for a 5-parameter history-read tool in this toolset.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully documents all five parameters: channel ID formats (C…/G…/D…) vs '#name', limit as max messages newest-first, and Slack ts bounds with inclusivity. The only minor gap is not restating the limit default, which the schema already supplies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Read recent message history from a channel') with an added acceptance format for the channel identifier. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling search_messages (which one would use for keyword queries) or read_thread (for reply threads), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'recent message history' plus the newest-first ordering, which suggests recency browsing rather than search. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of search_messages or read_thread as alternatives.

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