slack_read_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: a default of 20 messages and a hard cap of 100, which tells the agent about truncation. It says nothing about auth requirements, message ordering (newest-first?), or what happens beyond the 100-message ceiling.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the two parameter notes are one line each; there is no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 structure need not be described, and both parameters plus their limits are covered. What is missing is ordering/pagination behavior and access requirements, which an agent would want for a channel-read tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents both parameters, including that channel accepts a name without '#' or an ID, and that limit defaults to 20 and maxes at 100. The only gap is that the type/format of channel is not further constrained.

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 (read) plus resource (Slack channel) and scope (last N messages), which is enough to separate it from slack_post_message and slack_list_channels in practice. It never explicitly names or distinguishes those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (auth, bot membership in the channel), and no mention of alternatives such as slack_list_channels. The only usage information is implicit in the verb 'read'.

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